Conference back40::soapbox

    In today's Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph.
    
    "A drive to establish "community standards" on homsexuality, pornography
    and violence has been launched in five Colorado counties by the authors
    of Ammendment 2. Colorado for Family Values wants local governments in
    the counties....to establish standards so they can decide what kind of
    activities should be outlawed."
    
    
    ...Tom

	I wonder if they can do it without lying or distorting things this
time? 

    I didn't have the bullets that I pulled from the RMN last night, Glenn,
    but apparently they are already on the distortions.  
    
    Homosexual acts are, once again, the major focus of Kevin "there is a
    homosexual agenda behind every rainbow" Tebedo's group.
    
    meg

    
    "I have a list here of 15 known Homosexuals.  They may be anywhere.
     The security of the nation is at stake"

Somebody shot Nixon and you removed the bullets?

    Well if they are in Colorado we damn well will get rid of them. We here
    in Colorado know what a menace them there homos are!!   :-)
    
    ...Tom 

	yeah Tom..... they keep getting in the way of all those useful bashings
and hate mongerings.... :-)

	Very interesting that the same folks that fought (are fighting) so
	hard to preempt local community standards are now working so hard
	to create community standards.

	Perhaps Kevin Tebedo should look up the definition of hypocrite
	in the dictionary.

Jim

Colorado for Family Values latest resolution.

Editorial comment:  This is the group who said they weren't trying to 
terminate rights of certain groups of people, just to end "special rights"
to gay people.

Whereas, the (governing body name) is legally charged with protecting the
safety, health, and welfare of the community; and

Whereas, there are increasing assaults on those community standards that
jeopardize the protection of the public's safety, health, and welfare; and

Whereas the (governing body name) believes it must not sit silently and
watch those community standards be undermined; and

Whereas, homosexuality has been a recent focus of policy decisions from 
the federal to state and local levels of government; and

Whereas, the (governing body name) desires to support and defend the standards
of the community as articulated by the outspoken voice of the majority whom
it serves, as those standards relate to homosexuality, pornography, violence
and preservation of the nuclear family; and

Whereas, the (governing body name) makes the following statements of standards:

HOMOSEXUALITY: Homosexuality is not morally, ethically or legally equal to
heterosexuality.  It is understood that all citizens of America have equal
rights by virtue of their American citizenship; the rights and privileges
accorded citizenship do not extend to the behavior of homosexuality.  In short
Homosexuality is not an identity.  Our community must put its full force behind
heterosexuality only, and the institutions and policies it gives rise to. 

PORNOGRAPHY:  The community recognizes pornography (to include but not
limited to definitions by federal and state laws) to have no social or
artistic value whatsoever for our community.  Any economic value is
offset by the destruction of the family, the degradation of women, and 
children and the addictions of men that are the by-products of pornography.  

VIOLENCE:  The community understands that the primary force behind
violence in our community is the disintegration of the nuclear family.  
The majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by youth between the
ages of 18 and 25.  The high representation of blacks and Hispanics
in our jails and detention centers is a direct result of children
growing up without fathers in the home and a generally less active,
positive family unit in those communities.  These facts have led to an
environment where young minorities are perceived to be more dangerous
and may lead to unfair and even outright racist treatment. 

PRESERVATION OF THE FAMILY:  It is the standard of this community to put
its influence and resources behind the preservation of the nuclear family
as defined as a male and female morally and legally united as husband and 
wife, and to preserve the sanctity of this union to the best of our
community's ability.  The community is not ignorant nor complacent to the 
facts of life that impact a family.  However, even in divorce, death and
single parenthood the community recognizes the essential components of
male and female as the only elements comprising a family.  

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
	1) (governing body name) openly and vigorously supports the
current community standards and will not enact policies, ordinances,
or laws that are repugnant to the community standards; and
	2) (governing body name) pledges not  to fund, directly or 
indirectly, activities which seek to contravene these existing community 
standards or give affirmation or legitimacy to homosexual behavior and;
	3) (governing body name) calls upon all community leaders, elected
officials and policy makers to support and defend these standards; and
	4) (governing body name) believes that this resolution will serve
and protect the health, safety and welfare of its constituents; and
	5) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that (governing body name) supports and
will defend the constitutional and civil rights of all its citizens, but
recognizes much of human behavior to be neither a civil nor constitutional
right.  

    
    Bigotry was never a "value" in my family.
    

    re: .11
    
    So they don't treat homosexuality as an indentity, but a behavior.  So
    what?  It's their community, as long as the constitutional rights of
    citizens are not infringed, I fail to see this as bigotry.  
    
    I don't consider heterosexuality an identity, either. 
    
    -steve

    <<< Note 155.11 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>HOMOSEXUALITY: Homosexuality is not morally, ethically or legally equal to
>heterosexuality.  It is understood that all citizens of America have equal
>rights by virtue of their American citizenship; the rights and privileges
>accorded citizenship do not extend to the behavior of homosexuality.  In short
>Homosexuality is not an identity.  Our community must put its full force behind
>heterosexuality only, and the institutions and policies it gives rise to. 

	Let's review.

	Homosexuality id not an identity, but Heterosexuality is an
	identity, not only that, but an identity worthy of special
	protection by the (insert governing body).

>PORNOGRAPHY:  The community recognizes pornography (to include but not
>limited to definitions by federal and state laws) 

	A move to expand the definition of "pornography". I wonder
	what the definition in Kevin's little mind does include.

>The high representation of blacks and Hispanics
>in our jails and detention centers is a direct result of children
>growing up without fathers in the home and a generally less active,
>positive family unit in those communities. 

	This one borders on stereotyping all Blacks and Hispanics.
	Gues in Kevin's world there are no single parent white
	families.

>and may lead to unfair and even outright racist treatment. 

	Like, racist stuff like the first half of the paragrapgh.

>PRESERVATION OF THE FAMILY:  It is the standard of this community to put
>its influence and resources behind the preservation of the nuclear family
>as defined as a male and female morally and legally united as husband and 
>wife, and to preserve the sanctity of this union to the best of our
>community's ability.  

	Anyone want to guess how long it will take for them to criminalize
	co-habitation?

>	5) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that (governing body name) supports and
>will defend the constitutional and civil rights of all its citizens, but
>recognizes much of human behavior to be neither a civil nor constitutional
>right.  

	Except heterosexual behavior, of course.

Jim

    Extracted from the colorado post
    
    Edited, but retaining the original grammatical structure.
    
    Any economic value is
    offset by...children...that are the by-products of
    pornography.
    
    Maybe a misplaced comma?

    yes, but it seems they are only concerned with the constitutional
    rights of the peoples they approve of.  how do you get around that?

              <<< Note 155.13 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    I don't consider heterosexuality an identity, either. 
 
	But Kevin does. Enough so that they deserve special treatment
	and support.

	Not only is CFV hypocritical for pushing "local community
	standards" while at the same time trying to overturn the
	local community standards of Denver, Boulder and Aspen, 
	but NOW he wants "special rights" for Hets.


Jim

    Wow Steve.  I cannot fathom how anyone would fail to see the post as 
    bigoted.  It actively encourages treating a segment of the population
    as less than worthy, commuting all rights accorded them by law.  You
    may choose to not consider one's sexuality as part of their identity
    but that is being naive in the extreme.  This dung pile of legislation
    is every bit as scary as the erosion of rights and civil liberties for
    the rest of America that people keep harping about.  
    
    Brian

    How about this as a law?
    
    Any person, group of persons or government who conspires to take away
    the rights and liberties of any person, or group of persons
    automatically loses their rights and liberties.
    
    ...Tom

    I do not consider a person's sexuality as part of their identity, but
    this law DOES.
    
    It specifically mentions one sexuality as being IMMORAL and another as
    being CORRECT. 
    
    It does exactly what it says it doesn't, in making sexuality a divise
    issue.

    And not just one segment.
    
    Looks like the community standards they want to push are simply for
    white, heterosexual, nuclear families.  All others do not fit into the
    "standards," including my own loving family.  I wonder if the "family"
    of christian college students living around the corner from me will
    lose the right for the four women to co-habitate when the inevitable
    fallout of only single "families" can live in a home ordinances come
    through.  
    
    I think Kevin "the Rainbow Warrior" Tebedo has really lost it this
    time.  At least now, people may realize that there is an entire agenda
    behind the cover of Ammendment 2 and its "special rights" propaganda. 
    It is obvious that rather than the symphonic ideals of a diverse
    community, these people would like to have a monotonic, monochomatic
    society where all people are equal, but some are more equal than
    others.  
    
    One thing he did state as a possiblity in one interview  was preventing
    more topless bars, or other forms of adult entertainment from coming
    into "his" community.  I could see any x or unrated films being banned
    next as not befitting the "community standards" he is putting out in
    this tripe.  
    
    He is right on one piece though, homosexuals are not morally or
    ethically equal to heterosexuals.  I have never seen any of my gay
    friends make the bigotted statements around certain racial identities
    that the Rainbow Warrior has written into the violence piece of this
    resolution.  Nor have any of them considered themselves morally
    superior to certain groups or made such stereotypical comments.  
    
    I wonder when my religion will also be attacked as not befitting
    "community standards?"
    
    meg
    or

>It is understood that all citizens of America have equal
>rights by virtue of their American citizenship; the rights and privileges
>accorded citizenship do not extend to the behavior of homosexuality.

    I found this to be interesting.  In what way do the rights and privs
    accorded citizenship extend to the behaviour of heterosexuality?
    

    Sexuality is part of your identity, period.  Humans are equipped with
    sexual organs along with complex chemical and emotional components and 
    some level of desire to use them, or not.  It is part and parcel of who 
    you are, what you do and how you act.  It governs some or a large part of 
    your behavior.  You cannot separate yourself from your sexuality for at 
    some point it will come into play in your decision making processes even
    if it is to suppress sexual urges.  The measure proposed is hypocritical 
    at best.  I view it as far, far, more insidious even if I am not part of 
    the targeted group.  
    
    Brian

    
    > It is obvious that rather than the symphonic ideals of a diverse
    > community, these people would like to have a monotonic, monochomatic
    > society where all people are equal, but some are more equal than
    > others.  
    
    This sounds like Jesse Jackson and company....
    
    Dan

    
    
    Careful there Dan...
    
    Someone's liable to call the PC police on you....
    

    re: .18
    
    Only if you see homosexuality as an identity.  I do not.  I view it as
    a behavior.  I am heterosexual, yet I do not identify myself by my
    sexuality.  In fact, I condemn the behaviors of many who
    are...free...with their heterosexuality to the point of causing harm to 
    society.   
    
    Though this document may not be worded as I would like, I see the
    spirit of it as saying something similar to what I said above.  They
    wish to condemn behaviors that they feel are harmful to their
    community (as well as things that promote to said behaviors, like
    pornography).
    
    As far as blacks and hispanics are concerned, it specifically says the
    they are getting a bad rap due to certain mitigating circumstances;
    that these circumstances should not be the basis for racist action
    against said parties.  It mentions a reason why they think there is a
    disproportionate amount of the black and hispanic population behind
    bars, and promotes a solution (as they see it).
    
    As it is written, I would not support it, though I do support the
    spirit that I see behind it.  I'm not sure legislation is the way to
    go, however.  Legislation never actually solves any given problem,
    though in this day and age, everyone seems to think that it is the
    be-all answer to what ails us.
    
    
    -steve

              <<< Note 155.26 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>I am heterosexual, yet I do not identify myself by my
>    sexuality. 

Steve,	If you read this sentence carefully, you will note that it is
	quite contradictory.

Jim

    
    
    re: .27
    
    >quite contradictory.
    
    How so Jim?
    
    I'm Polish. I do not identify myself that way (except when joking
    around)... is that contradictory too??

    My desire for the opposite sex make me a heterosexual as well.  It is
    part of who and what I am.  You may opine that someone's desire for a
    partner of the same sex is a behavior but in fact that is false. 
    Acting on the desire is a behavior, the desire is part of that person's
    sexual identity whether you or anyone else likes it or not.  "Society"
    has failed to coerce the homosexuals into changing their behaviors
    because people simply cannot live in a way that is not in their nature. 
    I guess this must also hold true for bigots as evidenced by the CFV
    standards author(s).  
    
    Andy, you cannot escape your ethnic background.  Whether you flaunt
    this or not, your ancestry in inescapable.  It is part of who and what
    you are, yes?  
    
    Brian

    
    You're right Brian... I can't escape it...
    
    The point is... I do not consciously identify with it...
    
    I don't "in-your-face" anyone because I'm Polish
    
    I don't "in-your-face" anyone because I'm American
    
    I don't "in-your-face" anyone because I'm male
    
    I don't "in-your-face" anyone because I'm hetero

    I'll bet that you "in your face" more than one of the things listed
    whether it be conscious or not.  Many traits can be conspicuous 
    without being actively pointed out.  

    You will Andy, you will.

    re: andy
    
    most gay people i know don't "in-your-face" about it either.
    most gay people i know, i don't know are gay. i can, without
    much fear of being wrong, say the same about you. specifically,
    i doubt there's anything special about you that makes gay
    people want to "out" themselves around you! :-) :-)
    
    i mean, i know you're a mynly hunk and all, but ... :-) :-)
    
    -b

 <<< Note 155.30 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

>    I don't "in-your-face" .......

	A lot of groups that have suffered discrimination have used 
	"in your face" tactics.

	Rosa Parks got in the face of a bus driver. The Birmingham 7
	got in the face of the owner of a lunch counter. Martin Luther
	King Jr. got in the face of a nation.

	Crap like CFV's recent efforts will get a LOT of folks to get
	in their face.

	Kevin and his friends ought to got out and work in the community
	rather than trying to pass new laws designed only mandate a 
	particular lifestyle. Let's see them do some volunteer work, or
	become a Big Brother/Sister to kids at risk. This would be a whole 
	lot better than trying to tell the rest of us how to live, 
	particularly trying to LEGISLATE how we should live.

Jim

    
    RE: .34
    
    >particularly trying to LEGISLATE how we should live.
    
    
    Exactly!!!!! It works both ways!!!
    

    Okay, here's my line-by-line analysis of how I read this document. 
    This way, everyone can tar and feather me wholesale, rather than
    addressing only bits and peices of what I post.  8^)
    
>Whereas, the (governing body name) is legally charged with protecting the
>safety, health, and welfare of the community; and

    So far, no problem, unless you feel that it is not the responsibility of
    "(governing body name)" to do these things.
    
>Whereas, there are increasing assaults on those community standards that
>jeopardize the protection of the public's safety, health, and welfare; and

    They see thier community standards going down-hill to the point of
    endangering said community.
    
>Whereas the (governing body name) believes it must not sit silently and
>watch those community standards be undermined; and

    They aren't going to sit idly by while they see their standards getting
    tossed to the wind.
    
>Whereas, homosexuality has been a recent focus of policy decisions from 
>the federal to state and local levels of government; and

    This much is true.
    
>Whereas, the (governing body name) desires to support and defend the standards
>of the community as articulated by the outspoken voice of the majority whom
>it serves, as those standards relate to homosexuality, pornography, violence
>and preservation of the nuclear family; and

    They feel that the minority should not be able to dictate community
    standards to the majority.  
    
>Whereas, the (governing body name) makes the following statements of standards:

>HOMOSEXUALITY: Homosexuality is not morally, ethically or legally equal to
>heterosexuality.  
    
    I see them as stating that in their community, they do not view 
    homosexuality as moral.  Therefore, it should not be a protected behavior 
    under the law.
    
>    It is understood that all citizens of America have equal
>rights by virtue of their American citizenship; the rights and privileges
>accorded citizenship do not extend to the behavior of homosexuality.  In short
>Homosexuality is not an identity.  
    
    This is actually cutting to the chase.  Homosexuality is not an
    identity, but a behavior.  Not all behaviors are protected under the
    law. 
    
>    Our community must put its full force behind
>heterosexuality only, and the institutions and policies it gives rise to. 

    Reading between the lines, I think they are saying leave marriage,
    adoption, etc. laws as they are.  They present heterosexuality as the 
    norm, which is what they wish to support for their community.  
    
>PORNOGRAPHY:  The community recognizes pornography (to include but not
>limited to definitions by federal and state laws) to have no social or
>artistic value whatsoever for our community.  
    
    Excluding the parenthetical statement, I agree with this.  Pornography
    has no artistic or social value, but can be quite harmful to a
    community.  Where will they draw the line on what is "pornography",
    though?  Who decides what is pornographic?  
    
    I can see future problems with this portion of the document.
    
>    Any economic value is
>offset by the destruction of the family, the degradation of women, and 
>children and the addictions of men that are the by-products of pornography.  

    This is true, IMO.  I don't think people realize the harm that
    pornography can cause.
    
    We do have a problem with the accepted definition of the pornography,
    though; this needs to be clarified.
    
>VIOLENCE:  The community understands that the primary force behind
>violence in our community is the disintegration of the nuclear family.
    
    This is what they see as the cause of violence in their community.
      
>The majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by youth between the
>ages of 18 and 25.  The high representation of blacks and Hispanics
>in our jails and detention centers is a direct result of children
>growing up without fathers in the home and a generally less active,
>positive family unit in those communities.  
    
    Statistics *seem* to imply this, but I don't know that it is an
    absolute fact.  They are correct about the representation of blacks and
    hispanics in jails being out of proportion to respective populations.
    
>    These facts have led to an
>environment where young minorities are perceived to be more dangerous
>and may lead to unfair and even outright racist treatment. 
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    They acknowledge a possible problem due to the above circumstance. 
    The "solution" is to preserve the family unit (below).
    
>PRESERVATION OF THE FAMILY:  It is the standard of this community to put
>its influence and resources behind the preservation of the nuclear family
>as defined as a male and female morally and legally united as husband and 
>wife, and to preserve the sanctity of this union to the best of our
>community's ability.  
    
    This is the ideal.  It's hard to argue that a one-parent household is
    as good as a two-parent household, all else being equal.  This does not
    mean that a one-parent household is BAD, or that a single parent cannot
    raise their children properly, just that such is not the ideal
    situation.
    
>    The community is not ignorant nor complacent to the 
>facts of life that impact a family.  However, even in divorce, death and
>single parenthood the community recognizes the essential components of
>male and female as the only elements comprising a family.  

    To be honest, I'm not sure how to parse this one. 
    
>NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
>	1) (governing body name) openly and vigorously supports the
>current community standards and will not enact policies, ordinances,
>or laws that are repugnant to the community standards; and
    
    It will not enact policies or laws that go against their community
    standards.
    
>	2) (governing body name) pledges not  to fund, directly or 
>indirectly, activities which seek to contravene these existing community 
>standards or give affirmation or legitimacy to homosexual behavior and;
    
    No funds to programs which support things contrary to existing
    community values- specifically those that give affirmation or
    legitimacy to homosexual BEHAVIOR (emphasis mine).
    
>	3) (governing body name) calls upon all community leaders, elected
>officials and policy makers to support and defend these standards; and
    
    (self explanatory)
    
>	4) (governing body name) believes that this resolution will serve
>and protect the health, safety and welfare of its constituents; and
    
    (self explanatory)
    
>	5) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that (governing body name) supports and
>will defend the constitutional and civil rights of all its citizens, but
>recognizes much of human behavior to be neither a civil nor constitutional
>right.
    
    They will defend the rights of ALL (emphasis mine) citizens, but do not
    see certain BEHAVIORS (emphasis mine) as being constitutionally
    protected.
    
    
    
    
    Well, that's how I read it.  Needs a bit of work, IMO.  
    
    
    -steve 

    re: .27
    
    Yeah, I saw that.  I guess I could've said "I am a man who is attracted
    to women, yet I do not identify myself by my sexuality", but I figgured
    everyone would get the gist of what I was saying without the added
    typing.
    
    I also goofed on my first sentence, too.  I'm surprised you missed that
    one.  8^)
    
    I said that homosexuality is a behavior, which isn't altogether true. 
    It is a sexual preference, not a behavior in itself even though those
    who practice said behavior identify themselves as homosexuals.  Under
    this line of reasoning, I am not a heterosexual, as I do not actively
    practice sex (and won't until I con some unsuspecting female into 
    marrying me  8^) ).
    
    
    -steve

    re: .30
    
    ...and now we're hitting on the real issue, and the reason why
    documents like that in .11 are being written.
    

    Regardless of the spin you put on it Steve and however many facts get
    made up, it is still exclusionary, biased, and bigoted.  
    
    Brian

>    Regardless of the spin you put on it Steve and however many facts get
>    made up, it is still exclusionary, biased, and bigoted.  
    
   You forgot "hateful" "homophobic" and "intolerant" and any references to the
   Religious right.





 Jim

    
>>   You forgot "hateful" "homophobic" and "intolerant" and any references to the
>>   Religious right.

	er, maybe he left them out on purpose.

    Sorry to have missed those Jim but I think my choice of words is
    adequate.  Didn't see any references in there specifying a community 
    standard as needing to be affiliated with any religious group or having a 
    foundation in spirituality (as long as it is Christian).  If this is a
    document penned by members of the religious right then add hypocritical
    to the list.  
    
    Brian
    

    .36

    >So far, no problem, unless you feel that it is not the responsibility of
    >"(governing body name)" to do these things.

    Traditionally, how comfortable are you with being "protected" by
    governing bodies, Steve?
    
    >They feel that the minority should not be able to dictate community
    >standards to the majority.  
    
    Minority rights to the back of the bus, eh?

    >I see them as stating that in their community, they do not view 
    >homosexuality as moral.  Therefore, it should not be a protected behavior 
    >under the law.
    
    Why should heterosexuals have special rights?   :^)

    >Homosexuality is not an identity, but a behavior.  Not all behaviors 
    >are protected under the law. 
    
    Is heterosexuality protected?  Are heterosexuals discriminated against
    on the basis of their sexuality?

    >Statistics *seem* to imply this, but I don't know that it is an
    >absolute fact.  They are correct about the representation of blacks and
    >hispanics in jails being out of proportion to respective populations.
    
    Could be that the police and the courts are more prepared to enforce
    the law against blacks and hispanics than against whites.

    >They acknowledge a possible problem due to the above circumstance. 
    >The "solution" is to preserve the family unit (below).
    
    If they value the family unit so much, why prevent homosexuals from
    forming family units?

    >It will not enact policies or laws that go against their community
    >standards.
    
    Standards, decided by whom?  The Moral Majority?  Minorities need
    not apply?

    >No funds to programs which support things contrary to existing
    >community values- specifically those that give affirmation or
    >legitimacy to homosexual BEHAVIOR (emphasis mine).

    They will actively discriminate against homosexual groups and
    programs.  Plain as day.
    
    >They will defend the rights of ALL (emphasis mine) citizens, but do not
    >see certain BEHAVIORS (emphasis mine) as being constitutionally
    >protected.
    
    No they won't.  Gimme a break!  They will defend heterosexual rights
    and fight homosexual rights.  Heterosexuality is not constitutionally
    protected any more than homosexuality (at least, to my knowledge).

    jc
    

    Re: .36
    
    If you start with the premise that it is OK for the majority to
    legislate the morality it chooses for its own community, then
    everything else in your argument follows. 
    
    Otherwise, it all falls apart.
    
    Personally, I don't beleive in legislating any morality, and if I lived
    in a community that did, and I was in the minority, I'd move out.

 <<< Note 155.35 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

	Please explain how the GLB side has tried to legislate how YOU
	live

Jim

    re: .39
    
    Of course it's exclusionary.  They wish to denounce homosexual
    behavior- naturally they make their document exclusionary to this end. 
    
    Bigoted?  That's your opinion.  They feel that a certain behavior is
    wrong, therefore they do not support it, but wish to openly denounce
    it.  I see no bigotry, unless you consider a homosexual as being an
    individual who has no value outside his sex life.
    
    Biased?  Of course it is.  It is biased for community values as they
    define them, and against behaviors that go against their values.
    
    
    I'm not putting any spin on the document.  I even went line-by-line
    over the entire thing to show you how I read it.  If you see a
    particular spin I've put on my interpretation, please extract the
    bothersome section and respond to it.  FWIW, I think all too many
    people are reading into this document more than is there, simply
    because of its source.
    
    As I said before, I do not support this document as is (not that it
    would matter one way or the other since I live in Cincinnati).  In
    fact, I'm not for forming "community standards" legislation at all. 
    Nor am I for passing legislation to appease gay rights activists (to
    address the other side of the coin).   We don't need a new peice of
    legislation for every given problem we perceive to warrant attention.
    
                                                           
    -steve

    re: .43

    Yabbut, what about the platypus? You ignored it.

    
    .47
    
    I am opposed to Platypus Rights, and I favour tough legislation
    against them.
    

    re: .45
    
    Jim...
    
     The focus on my reply was your highlighted (capitalized) LEGISLATED..
    
    Sorry if that wasn't clear...

    
    .46
    
    >I see no bigotry, unless you consider a homosexual as being an
    >individual who has no value outside his sex life.
    
    But Steve, that's exactly the point.  Homosexuals are discriminated
    against by people who see them as nothing BUT homosexual.  They're not
    doctors or lawyers or actors or teachers or soldiers or politicians
    or athletes or anything else.  They're just gays, and to be treated as
    such.  
    

    <---- What he said.  

    And homosexual people are a part of the community, like it or not, as
    are single parents, commune dwellers, witches, moslems, people of
    color, people who choose to live together without the bonds of
    marriage, strippers, bar-owners, magazine stands...........
    
    Some  of these same people also contirbute more to the community than
    some people who are apparently trying to turn the city I grew up in and
    my kids have all been born in into a place where we aren't welcome.  I
    completely resent this particular resolution.  It smacks of the same
    fear factors used in a certain European country over 50 years ago that
    shipped people of difference off to camps in cattle cars.
    
    meg

    re: .43
    
>    Traditionally, how comfortable are you with being "protected" by
>    governing bodies, Steve?
 
    As I mentioned in my closing comments, I do not feel legislation is
    always the answer.  This applies to both sides of the issue.
      
>    Minority rights to the back of the bus, eh?

    This is a deflection.  First, you have to determine that homosexuals
    qualify as a minority under the law.  Since they are not limited to
    race, gender or any other normal means of determining what a minority
    is exactly, we have a problem.  To extrapolate on the illogic involved
    in qualifying homosexuals as minorities, the next step would be to call
    transvestites a minority class, then perhaps pedophiles, then ?? ...
    
>    >Homosexuality is not an identity, but a behavior.  Not all behaviors 
>    >are protected under the law. 
    
>    Is heterosexuality protected?  Are heterosexuals discriminated against
>    on the basis of their sexuality?

    My above statement is unclear, and perhaps wrong.  Let me clarify what
    I meant to say.
    
    "Sexual preference is not an identity, or reason for minority status.  
    Sexual acitivities are behaviors.  Not all sexual activities/behaviors 
    are protected under the law (pedophilia being one sexual behavior that 
    is banned)."
    
>    If they value the family unit so much, why prevent homosexuals from
>    forming family units?

    The family unit, being a mother and father by nature, is what they wish
    to support.  Since they view homosexual relations as wrong, obviously
    they are not going to support homosexuals raising children within the
    confines of what they see is an immoral lifestyle.
     
>    Standards, decided by whom?  The Moral Majority?  Minorities need
>    not apply?

    The standards set by a majority of the citizens of their community. 
    Why should a small group be able to enforce their views on the
    majority? 
    
>    >No funds to programs which support things contrary to existing
>    >community values- specifically those that give affirmation or
>    >legitimacy to homosexual BEHAVIOR (emphasis mine).

>    They will actively discriminate against homosexual groups and
>    programs.  Plain as day.
 
    So, you are saying it is bad that they refuse to fund
    organizations that promote values contrary to their community? 
    Strange logic. 
       
>    >They will defend the rights of ALL (emphasis mine) citizens, but do not
>    >see certain BEHAVIORS (emphasis mine) as being constitutionally
>    >protected.
    
>    No they won't.  Gimme a break!  They will defend heterosexual rights
>    and fight homosexual rights.  Heterosexuality is not constitutionally
>    protected any more than homosexuality (at least, to my knowledge).

    Not exactly (in this instance I was merely repeating what the document
    said, so you are jumping to conclusions that they will not defend the
    consitutional rights of all people...you are entitled to that opinion).
    First off, you use "rights" as a catch all.  Define what constitutional
    rights they are violating with this document, or propose to violate.
    
    We all have the same rights, which they say they will defend.  What
    they will not defend is twofold:
    
    a) that homosexuality is an identity worthy of minority status 
    b) that homosexual behavior is acceptable to their community
    
    
    Can this document be abused in the future to deny equal opportunity in
    other areas for homosexuals?  Probably.  This is one of the reasons I
    do not like this brand of legislation.  Of course, any peice of
    legislation can, and inevitably WILL, be abused sooner or later. 
    History is a harsh teacher on this fact.  Look at AA (another reason
    why I fight against the so called "homosexual rights" movement- it too
    will eventualy turn into quotas and God only knows what else as
    legislative evolution runs its course).
    
    
    -steve

    In a town of 100 if 51 people believe in cannabalism, it is ok for them
    to eat the 49 minority members, yes?  If 80% of a population believes
    in sterilizing people after one child is born then the other 20% should
    shut up and take their lumps as well, right?  
    
    meg

    <-----  .54  yes meg, unfortunately this describes democracy perfectly.
    
    ...Tom

    re: .44
    
    You are mistaken.  You need to get your constitutional facts straight. 
    I'll make it simple.
    
    1) Everyone it entitled to equal rights under common law.
    2) The Constitution does not protect all behaviors as if they were
       "rights".  If this were true, we'd not have any laws limiting the
       behavior of the citizens.
    3) Each community is responsible for making laws to protect said
       community.  In this day of federal control over everything, we loose
       sight of this fact.  People vote in representatives of like mind to 
       make policy that they wish for thier community.  The laws cannot 
       infringe upon the people's inalienable rights.
    
    With that said, why do we have murder laws?  To protect society? 
    Partly.  But murder laws really don't protect anyone, they merely
    afford a punishment to the offender when/if he is caught.  It does not
    stop him from committing murder.  Basically, the law says that the
    people of said community will not tolerate this behavior, and will
    punish anyone caught behaving in this manner.
    
    In effect, the majority of citizens say murder is wrong, therefore
    there should be a law against it.  Passing a law against murder does
    not limit this behavior, it only makes it a punishable behavior.
    
    If this document became law, it doesn't do anything to limit behavior. 
    It does not make homosexual relations illegal or punishable. 
    Basically, it says that the community finds homosexual behavor wrong,
    and simply refuses to recognize it as ACCEPTABLE behavior and will no
    support it or anyone who promotes it.
    
    A community has every right to set its own standards.  Like it or not,
    it is still a (somewhat) free nation.  What a community cannot do is
    invalidate a person's constitutionally protected rights due to race,
    gender, etc.  I do not see this as being the case in this document.
    
    I'm tired of people arguing that a community has no right to set
    standards.  It does, and it should, within constitutional guidelines.
    
    
    -steve

              <<< Note 155.53 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>then perhaps pedophiles, then ?? ...
 
	And you accuse OTHERS of deflecting the issue???????

>    "Sexual preference is not an identity, or reason for minority status.  

	THat's one opinion. Then again, when sexual orientation causes a 
	person to be descriminated against, a reasonable case could be
	made that this would lead to minority clasification.

>    The family unit, being a mother and father by nature, 

	But who is to say that CFV gets to define the term?

>    The standards set by a majority of the citizens of their community. 
>    Why should a small group be able to enforce their views on the
>    majority? 
 
	When it comes to protecting the rights of citizens, the Constitution
	REQUIRES it.

>    So, you are saying it is bad that they refuse to fund
>    organizations that promote values contrary to their community? 
>    Strange logic. 
 
	Not so strange. One of the examples that Kevin has used is this
	will prevent the renting of public halls to Gay organizations.
	Now those facilities are clearly a "public accomodation" where
	access should not be denied to ANY citizen.

>    We all have the same rights, which they say they will defend.

	Except that this document gives Hets special rights and 
	special regognition. Why should Hets receive special rights?

Jim

        >Basically, the law says that the
        >people of said community will not tolerate this behavior, and will
        >punish anyone caught behaving in this manner.
    
    I agree with what you say Steve. The problem in this case is we are not
    talking about murder, which is an objective crime, with a victim.
    Homosexuality and pornography do not fall into this catagory.
    
    ...Tom

              <<< Note 155.56 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    A community has every right to set its own standards. 

	Does this include communities like Denver, Boulder and Aspen?
	They have decided to extend their anti-descrimination laws
	to Gays.

Jim

    re: .50
    
    Hey, who said life was fair?  Idiots abound in this great nation of
    ours.  It's thier God given right to be idiots and bigots, are you
    suggesting we legislate against bigotry of all kinds?  
    
    We have the BoR, let's use it!  If someone feels their rights have been
    violated, then take it to court.  The answer is not always legislation.
    
    
    -steve 

    .53

    Steve, although I know you don't support this resolution as it's
    currently worded, I believe you support the intent behind it, so
    please allow me to continue trying to tar and feather you.  :^)
 
    >As I mentioned in my closing comments, I do not feel legislation is
    >always the answer.  This applies to both sides of the issue.
     
    Well, gays would appear to need a little bit of legislation to
    ensure that they enjoy the same (if not rights, then) freedoms that
    heteros enjoy, like equal consideration for employment, or tenancy,
    or the freedom to marry the person they most wish to.
  
    >This is a deflection.  First, you have to determine that homosexuals
    >qualify as a minority under the law.

    If they can be identified and discriminated against for something
    that they ARE (not choose, IMNSHO), then they qualify as a minority
    in my book.
 
    >To extrapolate on the illogic involved
    >in qualifying homosexuals as minorities, the next step would be to call
    >transvestites a minority class, then perhaps pedophiles, then ?? ...
    
    Ah, the `slippery slope' theory.  I could use this against you later,
    to claim that the real agenda of these folks it an outright ban on
    un-Christian activity of any kind.  You claim that this resolution
    outlaws nothing, but it sure lays a pretty solid foundation to justify
    the banning of "unacceptable" behaviours.

    >Not all sexual activities/behaviors are protected under the law 
    >(pedophilia being one sexual behavior that is banned).
    
    Well, Steve, since you brought up logic, what logical reason is there
    to distinguish between consensual gay sex and consensual hetero sex,
    provided we're talking adults here.

    >The standards set by a majority of the citizens of their community. 
    >Why should a small group be able to enforce their views on the
    >majority?

    Why, indeed?  Why should interracial marriages be legal in places
    like smalltown Mississippi? 
    
    >So, you are saying it is bad that they refuse to fund
    >organizations that promote values contrary to their community? 
    
    If we are talking here about taxpayer-funded groups and programs, then
    let me remind you that gays are taxpayers too, as are straights like
    myself who may not mind having our tax dollars spent that way.  Many
    taxpayers find (or found) military spending and foreign military
    campaigns immoral.  Does their discomfort count for anything?
       
    >First off, you use "rights" as a catch all.  Define what constitutional
    >rights they are violating with this document, or propose to violate.
    
    What "constitutional rights" are being violated by the war on drugs,
    or would be violated by a law banning extramarital sex, or for that
    matter, banning stained glass windows?  What does the constitution
    have to do with sex or marriage, gay OR straight?
    
    These people continue to see this as a case of gays trying to force
    something upon the community; in reality, the community is forcing 
    itself upon gays, interfering with their personal enjoyment of THEIR
    OWN lives.

    jc
    

    
    .60,
    
    So you admit that anti-gay bigotry is unfair.
    
    Now then, why shouldn't gays fight that unfairness?
    

              <<< Note 155.60 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    We have the BoR, let's use it!  If someone feels their rights have been
>    violated, then take it to court.  The answer is not always legislation.
 
	So you would call for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act? You would
	support discrimination in housing, employment, the use of public
	accomodations for any reason that a person might choose?

	I've seen you dream of returning to the idyllic '50s, but I didn't 
	realize that it was the 1850s you were talking about.

Jim

| <<< Note 155.11 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>




| Homosexuality is not an identity.  Our community must put its full force behind
| heterosexuality only, and the institutions and policies it gives rise to.

	Wow.... they say homosexuality is not an idendity, yet they come back
with heterosexuality only???? Ahhhh... luv those double standards.... I can see
why you washed your hands....

| <<< Note 155.13 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>


| So they don't treat homosexuality as an indentity, but a behavior.  So what?  

	The so what is they treat heterosexuality as an identity. Remember
Steve, they did say heterosexuality ONLY! 

| I don't consider heterosexuality an identity, either.

	But appartently they do

| <<< Note 155.26 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>



| Though this document may not be worded as I would like, I see the spirit of it
| as saying something similar to what I said above.  

	Steve, this is not true. You stated that hetero/homosexuality are not
identities. They are saying heterosexuality IS. Because of that, they are not
even close to what you are saying. They are allowing one identiti ONLY, yet one
that is like it isn't seen....sorry Steve... that's like saying everyone should
be white, and blacks don't exist as an identity. It's bigotry, pure and
strong... and sad.

| <<< Note 155.36 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>




| >    Our community must put its full force behind
| >heterosexuality only, and the institutions and policies it gives rise to.

| Reading between the lines, I think they are saying leave marriage,
| adoption, etc. laws as they are.  They present heterosexuality as the
| norm, which is what they wish to support for their community.

	Steve, this is foolish. Heterosexuality is the norm. They make up the
majority of the people in this world. They are saying heterosexuality ONLY! Not
the norm, just ONLY. 

| <<< Note 155.36 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>



| They feel that the minority should not be able to dictate community
| standards to the majority.

	Let's take Christians as a whole. If we take the amount of people who
claim to be Christians, subtract all those who you feel are not, then we end up
with a minority telling the country how things should be. Can I now see you
being quiet? :-)

| This is actually cutting to the chase.  Homosexuality is not an identity, but 
| a behavior.  

	It is not a behavior. If one has sex, then they have done an action. A
behavior has to be an action, but one does not have to have sex to be
homosexual. I used to have sex with women, it did not make me heterosexual. Sex
does not make one het/homosexual. 



Glen

| <<< Note 155.37 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| -< I don't believe in identifying oneself by sexual preference. >-

	It is more than a sex thang. It has to do with bonding. 

| I said that homosexuality is a behavior, which isn't altogether true.
| It is a sexual preference, not a behavior in itself even though those
| who practice said behavior identify themselves as homosexuals.  Under
| this line of reasoning, I am not a heterosexual, as I do not actively
| practice sex (and won't until I con some unsuspecting female into
| marrying me  8^) ).

	Steve, this is bull. You could spend your entire life never having sex,
and you would still be heterosexual. It has to do with who you can bond with
emotionally, physically, and if you get around to it, sexually. The last one
isn't needed to make you hetersosexual. You are heterosexual, whether you wish
to admit it or not. Get your head out of the sex, and look at the whole
picture.


Glen

| <<< Note 155.40 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| >    Regardless of the spin you put on it Steve and however many facts get
| >    made up, it is still exclusionary, biased, and bigoted.

| You forgot "hateful" "homophobic" and "intolerant" and any references to the
| Religious right.



	Jim, if you really don't want the labels to apply, don't bring them up
and apply them to others voices. 



Glen

| <<< Note 155.50 by TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!" >>>



| But Steve, that's exactly the point.  Homosexuals are discriminated
| against by people who see them as nothing BUT homosexual.  They're not
| doctors or lawyers or actors or teachers or soldiers or politicians
| or athletes or anything else.  They're just gays, and to be treated as
| such.


	Joan.... such a wonderful note! Thanks for posting it.

        .......zzzzzZzZZzZZZzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIIIIINNNNNGGGGGGGG!! :-)
    

	GlenN Richardson wrote .70?????


Glen

    My, I'm more influential than I thought.

    Nel

    re: .58
    
    I disagree.  I think there are indeed victims in both cases.  Trouble
    is, they are not as obvious as a murder victim.  
    
    
    -steve

    Steve,
    
    Who are the victims in pornography?  The story teller in the case of
    lacivious books?  The models in "Playboy" and "Penthouse", or other
    pictorial magazines and books?  The actors in movies?  The person who
    buys this stuff for personal gratification?  The strippers in the local
    bump and grind joints who are supporting their families?  The people
    who pay for any and all of these things?  The rainbow warrior has
    stated that he would like to see "Playboy" and "Penthouse" taken off
    the magazine racks.  He would like to have no further topless bars in
    the county, and would like to see the current ones closed down.  While
    this may not be my idea of entertainment, some people enjoy the
    fantasies that come from this.  Who am I to deny this?  If there
    weren't a market in town for smut, there wouldn't be any.  
    
    For those who don't know Colorado Springs, we are surrounded by
    military bases with large numbers of young, single people who pump lots
    of money into the economy, including the local nudie joints, theaters,
    and bookstores.  While having these people spend their energy and time
    in community service and church might be better from some points of
    view, a review of history of all large military encampments has already
    shown this isn't going to happen.  A bright side of this, from my
    perspective, however, is maybe CFV will push to have some or all of the
    bases and posts move out of the Springs since the people on them will
    not conform to "community standards."  Of course that would mean that a
    certain car dealer who belongs to CFV would have to forgo a large
    number of sales, and a large number of jobs would wind up leaving town,
    as well as a number of retirees who like to be close to posts. 
    Real-estate prices would come back into a reasonable range, and the
    spread of urban fungus on the hillsides would come to a screeching
    halt.  
    
    However, reality tells me that this is not what KT, WP, et al is going
    to have happen.  It would impact too much on their own profits. 
    Instead I see them pushing to have the gay-pride parade banned, as it
    is on public streets and ends at a public park.  They will stop the
    library district from buying any books remotely offensive to their idea
    of community standards.  Meaningful sex-ed will be taken out of the
    schools.  There will be more pressure on people of color and those of
    us with children born out-of-wedlock to leave the city because our
    living situations don't fit "community standards."   There will be
    pressure on some corporations who believe in diversity to either reform
    their ideas or move out.  Not a happy thought, as I work for one of
    those companies.  
    
    Finally, what frosts me, is they are pushing this here as comunity
    standards.  These are the same people who were willing to tell Boulder,
    Denver, Glenwood Springs, Aspen and a hst of other cities and towns
    that they couldn't use their community standards to guarantee rights to
    all citizens in those locations.  Either Tebedo and Perkins have
    completely lost all perspective in their fear of those who are
    different from them, or they are even more hypocritical than even I
    could think they were.  
    
    meg

    re: .56
    
    You said I was "mistaken" and need to "get my constitutional facts
    straight."
    
    Huh? seems like your post more agrees with mine than disagrees. I don't
    remember mentioning any facts about the constitution.

    re: .61
         
>    Well, gays would appear to need a little bit of legislation to
>    ensure that they enjoy the same (if not rights, then) freedoms that
>    heteros enjoy, like equal consideration for employment, 
    
    They should already have equal consideration for employment.  If they
    are being discriminated against, they should be able to take it to
    court.  No need for legislation.
    
>    or tenancy,
    
    Same as above. 
    
>    or the freedom to marry the person they most wish to.
 
    Here I disagree.  Equal rights has nothing to do with marriage. 
    Marriage is an institution sanctioned by the state- it is not a
    constitutional right, nor a protected freedom.  The state defines what
    marriage is, and regulates it according to the people's wishes.  
    
    In order to change this institution, you must have authorization from
    the people to do so (if a majority in that state want to change it, then 
    the state should follow their wishes).  Broad brush legislation to
    force a change to a long-held traditional institution only steps on the
    sensibilities of everyone who believes in that institution as it is. 
    
    Not allowing gay marriages does not violate any rights, but merely 
    upholds the institution in the form it was created.   

>    If they can be identified and discriminated against for something
>    that they ARE (not choose, IMNSHO), then they qualify as a minority
>    in my book.
 
    But the legal interpretation differs.  It is based on more than
    preference or behavior, but on concrete, provable criteria.
    
    I don't think you realize what a can 'o worms you would open up with
    your interpretation of what should qualify as a minority. 
    
>   >To extrapolate on the illogic involved
>   >in qualifying homosexuals as minorities, the next step would be to call
>   >transvestites a minority class, then perhaps pedophiles, then ?? ...
    
>   Ah, the `slippery slope' theory.  
    
    Not at all.  All the above mentioned "classes" of people could be
    considered minorities under your own definition.  I merely provide 
    future possible additions to the 'minority' class under your defintion.
    Legislative evolutiond is an interesting thing to watch, even painful-
    as you see intent tossed out the windor for legalisms, loopholes, and
    reinterpretations. 
    
>   You claim that this resolution
>   outlaws nothing, but it sure lays a pretty solid foundation to justify
>   the banning of "unacceptable" behaviours.

    Perhaps.  I think the intent is to keep gay rights activism from
    changing institutions that the people do not want changed- marriage,
    for one.  I see it as a preemptive defense, a reaction to what the gay
    rights activists are trying to do to traditional institutions.
                                                                                                                                        
>   Well, Steve, since you brought up logic, what logical reason is there
>   to distinguish between consensual gay sex and consensual hetero sex,
>   provided we're talking adults here.

    Depends which point of view you want me to answer from, now, doesn't
    it.  
    
>   Why, indeed?  Why should interracial marriages be legal in places
>   like smalltown Mississippi? 
    
    Because, by state law they meet the requirements for the institution of
    marriage- one man, one woman (who are not related 8^) ).
    
>   If we are talking here about taxpayer-funded groups and programs, then
>   let me remind you that gays are taxpayers too, as are straights like
>   myself who may not mind having our tax dollars spent that way.  Many
>   taxpayers find (or found) military spending and foreign military
>   campaigns immoral.  Does their discomfort count for anything?
 
    Gays make up a very small % of the population, so in effect, it is the
    non-gays who fund a great majority of tax-payer funded events.  What
    you leave off is that a community can set its own standards (within
    constitutional guidelines), they should not be forced to fund events
    that they perceive to promte immorality. 
    
    The military strawman has been argued before, so I'll only say that the
    Constitution specifically mentions that the government can levy taxes
    to fund the military.  Comparing this to the other issue is the
    proverbial apples and oranges comparison.
    
>   What "constitutional rights" are being violated by the war on drugs,
    
    Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Tenth Amendments are being violated, if I
    remember my list correctly.
    
>   or would be violated by a law banning extramarital sex, or for that
>   matter, banning stained glass windows?  
    
    No constitutional law would be violated here.  Such things go under
    community standards.  In the case of extramarital sex, it is a legal
    cause to sue for divorce.  Even when divorce was not such an easy thing
    to do legally, it was cause enough.
    
    As far as you "staned glass windows" scenario, I liken this to tinted
    window regulations we have in Cincinnati (and I'm sure many other
    cities have them as well).  If the community wished to ban stained
    glass windows, and had ample reason to do so (and near full community
    support), then they could do so.
    
>   What does the constitution
>   have to do with sex or marriage, gay OR straight?
 
    Nothing, therein lies the problem for gay rights activists.  They have
    no constitutional ground to stand upon in regards to changing a
    state-sanctioned and regulated institution. 
    
>   These people continue to see this as a case of gays trying to force
>   something upon the community; in reality, the community is forcing 
>   itself upon gays, interfering with their personal enjoyment of THEIR
>   OWN lives.

    Nonsense.  Gays can cohabitate, there's no law stopping them.  They can
    enjoy life as they like.  What the community is not letting them do is
    change the traditional institution of marriage.  It is NOT the
    community forcing itself upon the gays, it is the gays who are trying
    to force their standards on the community.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .63
    
    You missed the point.  
    
    Your deflection on what I want to see is irrelevent and incorrect.

    re: .76
    
    First of all, Playboy and Penthouse do not come immediately to mind
    when I use the term "pornography"- this is your assumption.
    
    Secondly, if you think pornography has no ill effects on people (males
    particularly), you are in a dreamworld.  The "victims" of pornography-
    those that become addicted to it- are of a number that would probably
    shock all of us in here.  This is not a problem that is brought to
    public attention as is alcoholism, drug abuse, child beating, etc.  The
    damage is very real, though, it's just not as obvious as the former
    addictions.
    
    
    
    -steve          

              <<< Note 155.78 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    They should already have equal consideration for employment.  If they
>    are being discriminated against, they should be able to take it to
>    court.  No need for legislation.
    
>>    or tenancy,
    
>    Same as above. 
 
	Then you ARE in favor of repealing all the civil rights legislation	
	that has been passed in the last 40 years.

>    Here I disagree.  Equal rights has nothing to do with marriage. 
>    Marriage is an institution sanctioned by the state- it is not a
>    constitutional right, nor a protected freedom.  The state defines what
>    marriage is, and regulates it according to the people's wishes.  
 
	"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject
	to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
	and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or
	enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
	of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any 
	person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law;
	nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
	of the laws."

	Notice the heavy restriction on the States ability to pass certain
	laws. Notice that it does not speak only of rights, but of
	privileges.

	Civil marriage is a legal contract between two individuals. All
	of your posturing about it being an "institution" have no legal
	standing.

	Prohibitions against Gay marriages is a CLEAR violation of
	the protections afforded to ALL citizens by the 14th Amendment.
	And one State has already come to this conclusion.

	There IS a Constitutional issue. And no matter how much you
	try to obsfucate the issue, it will not go away.

>>   Why, indeed?  Why should interracial marriages be legal in places
>>   like smalltown Mississippi? 
    
>    Because, by state law they meet the requirements for the institution of
>    marriage- one man, one woman (who are not related 8^) ).
 
	We should note that these laws were not changed by a vote of
	the majority UNTIL they had been successfully challenged in
	a court of law. The courts held that these laws violated
	the equal protection clause and were therefore unconstitutional.

>    Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Tenth Amendments are being violated, if I
>    remember my list correctly.
 
	You forgot the First (for certain religious organizations).

>If the community wished to ban stained
>    glass windows, and had ample reason to do so (and near full community
>    support), then they could do so.
 
	You really DO think that the 51 cannibals can vote to eat the
	other 49, don't you?

Jim

              <<< Note 155.79 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

    
>    You missed the point.  
 
	"Let them take it to court" and "legislation is not always the
	answer" leaves very little room for you to manuever. Either
	the Civil Rights Act is a "good" things or it is not.

	Which is it?

>    Your deflection on what I want to see is irrelevent and incorrect.

	Hardly irrelevent. I can see why you don't want to answer, since
	any response will weaken you position.

Jim

    
    Steve .53 is very well written.  My complements.

    re:.61
    > Well, gays would appear to need a little bit of legislation to
    > ensure that they enjoy the same (if not rights, then) freedoms that
    > heteros enjoy, like equal consideration for employment, or tenancy,
    > or the freedom to marry the person they most wish to.

    Why?  Following this logic EVERYONE needs a little bit of legislation. 
    This is an idiotic concept.  The best thing we can do is get the
    government OUT of our lives, pockets, and bedrooms !

    Dan

    Pornography does not create sex addicts,  alcohol does not create
    alcoholics, drugs do not create junkies in the same as way that guns do
    not create murderers.  The there is a huge difference between the use
    and abuse of any of the above but you knew that.

 Ask former porn stars if there are any victims of pornography (except for
 those who are dead, of course).




 
Jim

| <<< Note 155.78 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| They should already have equal consideration for employment. If they are being
| discriminated against, they should be able to take it to court. No need for 
| legislation.

	So when Crackerbarrel decided to fire those who they THOUGHT were gay,
and the employees could not take them to court, you still see no need for 
legislation? They were very vocal as to why these employees were being fired. 
And the employees could do nothing about it. Kind of kills what you said above, 
huh Steve?

| Here I disagree. Equal rights has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is an 
| institution sanctioned by the state- it is not a constitutional right, nor a 
| protected freedom. The state defines what marriage is, and regulates it 
| according to the people's wishes.

	I agree with the above. But the reason it isn't opened up yet is
because too many religious zealots try to interject their religious views into
this. But, like common law marriages, jp marriages, this is something I think,
anyway, will eventually be added to the list. Maybe not all states, at least
not for a while, but I think a lot of them will.

| Not allowing gay marriages does not violate any rights, but merely upholds the
| institution in the form it was created.

	I disagree. If you went by what you stated above, we would have no
common law marriages, no jp marriages. But we have them, which deflates your
above reasoning, doesn't it?

| I think the intent is to keep gay rights activism from changing institutions 
| that the people do not want changed- marriage, for one.  

	That seems to have already been changed by heterosexuals, with the 
things listed above. 

| I see it as a preemptive defense, a reaction to what the gay rights activists 
| are trying to do to traditional institutions.

	They are just doing the same as others, Steve. But I haven't heard you
mention one single thing about the other types of marriages that have come
along the way that differ from the "institution".

| It is NOT the community forcing itself upon the gays, it is the gays who are 
| trying to force their standards on the community.

	Steve, are we saying everyone has to be in a gay marriage? Nope. That 
is the only way we can force anything onto communities. Common Law, etc are all
things that are out there. All anyone is doing is trying to figure out why
anyone complain at the level they are, without ever including the common law,
jp stuff? That is easy to answer..... they are only singling out gays, not the
institution of marriage. Sounds to me like we're back at the bigotry trail
again.



Glen

| <<< Note 155.83 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

| Why?  Following this logic EVERYONE needs a little bit of legislation. This 
| is an idiotic concept. The best thing we can do is get the government OUT of 
| our lives, pockets, and bedrooms !

	Dan, what plan would you put into place besides legislation, that would
prevent gay employees from being fired from their jobs? Crackerbarrell fired
the employees they THOUGHT they were gay. The employees could do nothing about
it. How do you prevent this from happening?


Glen

	Steve, could you address .66-.69?


Glen

    
    .83

    >This is an idiotic concept.
    
    Just 'cuz you say it with conviction, don't make it so.  Enlighten 
    us, oh Danny Pneumatic.  How do YOU feel about gays in the military?
    Gays as public school teachers?  Same-sex marriages?  Gays adopting
    the children of their S.O.?
    

	Joan.... you impress me more and more with every note you enter...:-)

    
    Big talk, Glen, but I need cash.   ;^)
    
    Send it along ASAP!!
    

    Glen, most (if not all) the things you brought up in .66 - .69 are
    covered in other notes indirectly.  
    
    
    -steve

    re: .81
    
    Jim, you are basically interpreting the 14th Amendment to mean that
    state's must accept all forms of abnormality into its institutions. 
    
    By your definition, polygamy must be accepted, too.  Age limitations
    are questionable, and those related should be able to marry.
    
    I hardly think the 14th Amendment was intended to completely bar the 
    state from regulating its institutions. 
    
    Also, in one of your notes, you comment about marriage being a contract
    between two people.  This is only partly true.  It is a contract between
    two people and the state (and originally, God).  
    
    
    -steve                                        

              <<< Note 155.93 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    Jim, you are basically interpreting the 14th Amendment to mean that
>    state's must accept all forms of abnormality into its institutions. 
 
	Not true. I have not addressed "all" forms of anything.

>    By your definition, polygamy must be accepted, too. 

	Actually, yes. I believe a solid case can be made that the
	14th Amendment would protect polygamous civil marriage.

> Age limitations
>    are questionable, 

	Only for those cases where a limitation is placed above the
	age of majority. 

>and those related should be able to marry.
 
	Also true.
   
>    I hardly think the 14th Amendment was intended to completely bar the 
>    state from regulating its institutions. 
 
	There is nothing in the 14th that bars the States from passing
	regulations. But the entire point of the Amendment is to ensure
	that those regulations are equally applied to all citizens.

>    Also, in one of your notes, you comment about marriage being a contract
>    between two people.  This is only partly true.  It is a contract between
>    two people and the state (and originally, God).  
 
	You are incorrect. The State recognizes that the contract exists.
	It is NOT a party to the contract.

Jim

| <<< Note 155.91 by TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!" >>>


| Big talk, Glen, but I need cash.   ;^)

	Hey, Jesus never got paid, why should you? 

	Steve, let me go through the things I don't think were covered by other
notes that were in .66-.69. If any of it has been addressed, please point me
there. I have read all the entries, and didn't think these things were covered
at all:




| They feel that the minority should not be able to dictate community
| standards to the majority.

	Let's take Christians as a whole. If we take the amount of people who
claim to be Christians, subtract all those who you feel are not, then we end up
with a minority telling the country how things should be. Can I now see you
being quiet? :-)

| This is actually cutting to the chase.  Homosexuality is not an identity, but 
| a behavior.  

	It is not a behavior. If one has sex, then they have done an action. A
behavior has to be an action, but one does not have to have sex to be
homosexual. I used to have sex with women, it did not make me heterosexual. Sex
does not make one het/homosexual. 

| I said that homosexuality is a behavior, which isn't altogether true.
| It is a sexual preference, not a behavior in itself even though those
| who practice said behavior identify themselves as homosexuals.  Under
| this line of reasoning, I am not a heterosexual, as I do not actively
| practice sex (and won't until I con some unsuspecting female into
| marrying me  8^) ).

	Steve, this is bull. You could spend your entire life never having sex,
and you would still be heterosexual. It has to do with who you can bond with
emotionally, physically, and if you get around to it, sexually. The last one
isn't needed to make you hetersosexual. You are heterosexual, whether you wish
to admit it or not. Get your head out of the sex, and look at the whole
picture.

	Steve, could you also address .86? Thanks.


Glen

re: .96


| They feel that the minority should not be able to dictate community
| standards to the majority.

>	Let's take Christians as a whole. If we take the amount of people who
>claim to be Christians, subtract all those who you feel are not, then we end up
>with a minority telling the country how things should be. Can I now see you
>being quiet? :-)

    I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here, nor how it applies to 
    the current discussion.   I'll let you expand on this a bit before I
    take a stab at it.
    
| This is actually cutting to the chase.  Homosexuality is not an identity, but 
| a behavior.  

>	It is not a behavior. 
    
    I corrected my above statement in another note.  In fact, you've posted
    at least a portion of my correction below (following paragraph).

| I said that homosexuality is a behavior, which isn't altogether true.
| It is a sexual preference, not a behavior in itself even though those
| who practice said behavior identify themselves as homosexuals.  Under
| this line of reasoning, I am not a heterosexual, as I do not actively
| practice sex (and won't until I con some unsuspecting female into
| marrying me  8^) ).

>	Steve, this is bull. You could spend your entire life never having sex,
>and you would still be heterosexual. 
    
    No, I would be a monk.  8^)  
    
>    It has to do with who you can bond with
>emotionally, physically, and if you get around to it, sexually. The last one
>isn't needed to make you hetersosexual. You are heterosexual, whether you wish
>to admit it or not. Get your head out of the sex, and look at the whole
>picture.

    Identifying oneself by sexual orientation (though rather
    mainstream today) seems to be very limiting- even crude.  It simply
    is not an identification, it is a trait.  Taking one trait and forming
    an identity around it is not in anyone's best interest, especially when
    it goes astray of norms.  Legislating that an abnormal trait be
    accepted as equal with traditional norms is ludicrous, as far as most
    of society is concerned.
    
    
    -steve                   

    
    > Dan, what plan would you put into place besides legislation, that would
    > prevent gay employees from being fired from their jobs? Crackerbarrell 
    > fired the employees they THOUGHT they were gay. The employees could do 
    > nothing about it. How do you prevent this from happening?

    Glen, I would do exactly the same thing if it was homosexual, or
    heterosexual.  Tough luck, get another job.  Any company can get rid of
    any employee that it wants to.  There is no true way to prevent it.  In
    addition to which, why the hell would anyone want to work somewhere
    they weren't wanted and appreciated.  That is moronic.  If I don't feel
    like I am sufficiently appreciated for what I do, I go someplace else. 
    What's the big deal?  Too many people are making mountains out of
    molehills.  GROW UP!  This is the real world and bad things happen to
    good people.  Learn to accept that, and overcome it.


    John:

    > How do YOU feel about gays in the military?

    Depends, do they want to serve and protect their country, or make a
    political statement?

    > Gays as public school teachers?

    Could not care less.

    > Same-sex marriages?

    Marriage as a legal contract.  Gender does not matter.  Marriage as a
    religious event, would depend on the religion.

    > Gays adopting the children of their S.O.?

    Ehhh?  I could argue it either way.

    How's that Johnny, did I disappoint ya'

    Dan

    
    STEVE
    
    
    
    You Missed a SNARF ! ! ! !
    
    
    
    :-)
    Dan

re: .86

>	So when Crackerbarrel decided to fire those who they THOUGHT were gay,
>and the employees could not take them to court, you still see no need for 
>legislation? 
    
    I thought they did take Crackerbarrel to court (or at least settled out
    of court)?

>	I agree with the above. But the reason it isn't opened up yet is
>because too many religious zealots try to interject their religious views into
>this. 
    
    Well, if you're going to speak of religious people, get your facts
    straight, and quit name-calling.  The Bible is very specific as to the
    prerequisites of a couple to be married.  It is a holy institution
    where God is the third party.  Having a small group of gay rights
    "zealots" (to use your own term in the same manner) try and bastardize
    this holy institution tends to stir up things- and of course it is
    those who react, rather than those pushing, that get tagged with nasty
    names.
    
>    But, like common law marriages, jp marriages, this is something I think,
>anyway, will eventually be added to the list. Maybe not all states, at least
>not for a while, but I think a lot of them will.

    You may be right.
    
| Not allowing gay marriages does not violate any rights, but merely upholds the
| institution in the form it was created.

>	I disagree. If you went by what you stated above, we would have no
>common law marriages, no jp marriages. But we have them, which deflates your
>above reasoning, doesn't it?

    Well, no common law marriages, anyway.  I don't necessarily view this
    as a horrible thing.  Depends on your point of view, I guess.
    
| I think the intent is to keep gay rights activism from changing institutions 
| that the people do not want changed- marriage, for one.  

>	That seems to have already been changed by heterosexuals, with the 
>things listed above. 

    They were changed by taking racism out of the picture.  The
    prerequisites are unchanged (one man and one woman).  As soon as gay
    become minorities, then legally, they'll be in the same boat.
    
| I see it as a preemptive defense, a reaction to what the gay rights activists 
| are trying to do to traditional institutions.

| It is NOT the community forcing itself upon the gays, it is the gays who are 
| trying to force their standards on the community.

>	Steve, are we saying everyone has to be in a gay marriage? Nope. That 
>is the only way we can force anything onto communities. 
    
    Wrong.  By changing the law, you force the state to publically condone
    what many believe is wrong.  *Some* view this as a cheapening of the
    marriage institution.
    
>    Common Law, etc are all
>things that are out there. All anyone is doing is trying to figure out why
>anyone complain at the level they are, without ever including the common law,
>jp stuff? That is easy to answer..... they are only singling out gays, not the
>institution of marriage. Sounds to me like we're back at the bigotry trail
>again.


    Common law and jp marriages are still one man and one woman- the basic
    prerequisites of a traditional marraige.
    
    It is not bigotry to refuse to condone all lifestyles. 
    
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 155.98 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here, nor how it applies to the 
| current discussion. 

	Steve, it's easy. You talked about the minority telling the majority
what to do is wrong. If we took all those who claim to be Christians, run it
through your own criteria for what is a Christian, you would be a majority
people telling the majority what to do. In other words, you would be completely
one sided in your thinking by making Christians the minority that can tell the
majority what to do.

| I corrected my above statement in another note.  In fact, you've posted
| at least a portion of my correction below (following paragraph).

	I know you stated the correction, but later on you stated you could not
be heterosexual die to you not having sex with a woman yet. This is false.

| >	Steve, this is bull. You could spend your entire life never having sex,
| >and you would still be heterosexual.

| No, I would be a monk.  8^)

	A heterosexual monk at that! 

| >    It has to do with who you can bond with
| >emotionally, physically, and if you get around to it, sexually. The last one
| >isn't needed to make you hetersosexual. You are heterosexual, whether you wish
| >to admit it or not. Get your head out of the sex, and look at the whole
| >picture.

| Identifying oneself by sexual orientation (though rather mainstream today) 
| seems to be very limiting- even crude.  

	I FULLY agree with what you wrote above if that was the only thing
identifing the person. But in a case such as Crackerbarrell firing the
employees because they thought they were gay, then in this case of
discrimination, the identification would be gay. If one were discriminating you
because of your Christian background, then the identifier would be Christian.
It really depends on what is going on, doesn't it?

| Taking one trait and forming an identity around it is not in anyone's best 
| interest, 

	I agree if it is the only trait that a person is using for themselves.
If it is part of them, then they can use it as one of the qualifiers of that
person.

| especially when it goes astray of norms.  

	This part makes no sense. Lefthandedness goes against the norms. Being
Asian goes against the norm in this country. Going against a norm does not mean
it is bad.

| Legislating that an abnormal trait be accepted as equal with traditional norms
| is ludicrous, as far as most of society is concerned.

	Steve, do you have to accept two guys getting married? Nope. Do I have
to accept to people of the oppisite sex getting married? Nope. No one has to
accept it. I still see you have said nothing about common law marriages. When
will you address that, along with a marriage by a jp, which go against the
traditional norms? 




Glen

    re: .99 (first paragraph)
    
    That's about how I view things, too.  All the whining makes me think
    that the USA is turning into a huge day-care facility, with Congress as
    our day care providers/teachers/protectors.
    
    No amount of legislation will make life fair.
    
    By the way, Dan, 
    
    YOU STOLE MY SNARF!! 

| <<< Note 155.99 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| Glen, I would do exactly the same thing if it was homosexual, or heterosexual.
| Tough luck, get another job. Any company can get rid of any employee that it 
| wants to.  

	Ok... you have worked for Digital for 10 years. You have been found out
that you're gay, and you're fired. How do you account for those 10 years? You
certainly won't be able to use them as a reference. How about if you got fired
after 10 years because of your nationality? Does it make sense? Dan, your
logic is flawed.

| In addition to which, why the hell would anyone want to work somewhere they 
| weren't wanted and appreciated. That is moronic.  

	Let's see..... the owner, who is never in your facility, doesn't work
with you. Your immediate boss and coworkers do. You like your job, it pays the
bills, and things are going well at the office. The guy who owns the company,
drops by one day and thinks you're gay. He fires you. He tells the manager that
unless (s)he fires you, they will be fired. The owner leaves, you have no job.
Does this answer the above question on it being moronic? 

| If I don't feel like I am sufficiently appreciated for what I do, I go 
| someplace else.

	Will you be able to do it with a 10 year bad mark?

| What's the big deal?  Too many people are making mountains out of molehills.  

	No, too many people aren't thinking it all the way through. And I don't
think this applies to gays only, but a people as a whole. One could be fired
for being gay, a woman, different color, nationality, etc, under your view.
That is something I never want to see.

| GROW UP! This is the real world and bad things happen to good people. Learn to
| accept that, and overcome it.

	How do you overcome a 10 year bad mark????

| > How do YOU feel about gays in the military?

| Depends, do they want to serve and protect their country, or make a political 
| statement?

	On this, we agree. 

| > Gays as public school teachers?

| Could not care less.

	On this we agree.

| > Same-sex marriages?

| Marriage as a legal contract.  Gender does not matter.  Marriage as a
| religious event, would depend on the religion.

	Again, on this we agree.

| > Gays adopting the children of their S.O.?

| Ehhh?  I could argue it either way.

	Care to take a stab?


Glen

    Dan:
    
    Re: Crackerbarrel:  Is Crackerbarrel a privately held company or do
    they issue common stock?  If they issue stock to the public at a price,
    then the accountability is necessary from the CEO to its shareholders
    in my opinion.  This includes upholding laws regarding hiring
    practices.  If gay individuals are purposely disrupting production of
    product and annoying the other employees, then that could be grounds
    for dismissal.  If a bunch of Christians are evangelizing instead of
    doing the best job they can, then this is grounds for dismissal.  If
    gay individuals are minding their business and not pushing an agenda or
    any such thing, then I believe this to be grounds for discrimination.
    
    Private companies...it's their call in my opinion!  You can't legislate
    morality...remember??
    
    -Jack

re: .102
    
>	Steve, it's easy. You talked about the minority telling the majority
>what to do is wrong. 
    
    No, that's not exactly what I said.  Let's just leave it at that, though. 
    I don't feel like going back and re-reading all my notes to get the
    full context.  I do know my statement had constitutional qualifiers.

>	I know you stated the correction, but later on you stated you could not
>be heterosexual die to you not having sex with a woman yet. This is false.

    No, I said following a certain line of logic, I would not be a
    heterosexual.  The logic may have had flaws, at least in my conclusion,
    but the idea is an interesting one (to me, anyway).  If I don't call
    myself heterosexual, gay nor bisexual, what would I be?
    
>	A heterosexual monk at that! 
    
    Depends on how you label things.
    
>	I FULLY agree with what you wrote above if that was the only thing
>identifing the person. But in a case such as Crackerbarrell firing the
>employees because they thought they were gay, then in this case of
>discrimination, the identification would be gay. If one were discriminating you
>because of your Christian background, then the identifier would be Christian.
>It really depends on what is going on, doesn't it?

    If you fully agreed with my above statement (edited out), you should
    realize the difference.  First of all, religion is protected by the
    First and the Civil Rights act (if I remember it correctly).  Second,
    a Christian IS who I am and what I am.  Though I do not use sexuality
    labels to define my identity, I DO use Christianity as such.  My
    identity is in Christ.  There is a difference.

| especially when it goes astray of norms.  

>	This part makes no sense. Lefthandedness goes against the norms. Being
>Asian goes against the norm in this country. Going against a norm does not mean
>it is bad.

    Well, in my instance, we bring up moral and sensibility problems, when
    being introduced into society.  In your examples, we bring up neither.

>	Steve, do you have to accept two guys getting married? Nope. Do I have
>to accept to people of the oppisite sex getting married? Nope. No one has to
>accept it.
    
    The state has to accept it.  The laws/regulations of a state reflect
    upon the people.  Public acceptance is acceptance of the community by
    default, whether they like it or not.
    
    A nation's laws reflect upon the people of that nation.
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 155.101 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| >	So when Crackerbarrel decided to fire those who they THOUGHT were gay,
| >and the employees could not take them to court, you still see no need for
| >legislation?

| I thought they did take Crackerbarrel to court (or at least settled out
| of court)?

	That's news to me. They were trying to, but the company did not break
any laws. 

| Well, if you're going to speak of religious people, get your facts straight, 
| and quit name-calling.  

	There was no name calling Steve. There are religious people who don't
see a problem with same sex marriages. There are people like Dobson, who are
zelouts, who go out and warp the truth to push for what they believe is true. I
don't mind the guy pushing for what he believes in, but wonder why he can't use
nothing but the truth when talking about the other side. btw, zealouts is
someone who doesn't have to be religious, just to the far extreme. They come in
every group imaginable. 

| The Bible is very specific as to the prerequisites of a couple to be married. 
| It is a holy institution where God is the third party.  

	Then what of common law marriages? JP marriages? Why aren't they
targeted?

| Having a small group of gay rights "zealots" (to use your own term in the same
| manner) try and bastardize this holy institution tends to stir up things- and 
| of course it is those who react, rather than those pushing, that get tagged 
| with nasty names.

	If they were consistant, there would be no problems. They aren't.
Common law is hardly traditional. JP is hardly traditional. Yet if you see two
people together with wedding rings, they are viewed as being ok, regardless of
the way they got married. This is where you lose time and time again.

| | Not allowing gay marriages does not violate any rights, but merely upholds the
| | institution in the form it was created.

| >	I disagree. If you went by what you stated above, we would have no
| >common law marriages, no jp marriages. But we have them, which deflates your
| >above reasoning, doesn't it?

| Well, no common law marriages, anyway.  

	JP as well. Or some Vegas marriages. If they don't want God to be apart
of it, they don't have to. Yet again, why no comotion to stop these?

| | I think the intent is to keep gay rights activism from changing institutions
| | that the people do not want changed- marriage, for one.

| >	That seems to have already been changed by heterosexuals, with the
| >things listed above.

| They were changed by taking racism out of the picture.  

	Steve, I'm talking common law/jp marriages. Inter-racial never should
have been a problem to begin with.

| The prerequisites are unchanged (one man and one woman).  As soon as gay
| become minorities, then legally, they'll be in the same boat.

	Remember Steve, your version of Chrstians are a minority as well. You
don't make up the majority. 

| >	Steve, are we saying everyone has to be in a gay marriage? Nope. That
| >is the only way we can force anything onto communities.

| Wrong. By changing the law, you force the state to publically condone what 
| many believe is wrong. *Some* view this as a cheapening of the marriage 
| institution.

	Steve, your minority group is doing stuff like this now. By telling the
majority of people how they should be living their lives. Your minority group
is cheapening the institution of America. 

| Common law and jp marriages are still one man and one woman- the basic
| prerequisites of a traditional marraige.

	Ahhhh..... and here I was thinking that a traditional marriage HAD to
include God. So you are saying that I am wrong for thinking this, right? 


Glen

| <<< Note 155.106 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>



| No, I said following a certain line of logic, I would not be a heterosexual.  

	The logic would be false though. 

| If I don't call myself heterosexual, gay nor bisexual, what would I be?

	Dead? :-)  It is part of your make-up as a person. 

| If you fully agreed with my above statement (edited out), you should realize 
| the difference. First of all, religion is protected by the First and the Civil
| Rights act (if I remember it correctly).  

	Not anymore it isn't. Under your plan, as you do agree with Dan,
legislation is removed. All protections are gone. You can be fired for being a
Christian. 

| a Christian IS who I am and what I am.  

	That is PART of you, but not the entire thing. There are other aspects
to you as well. True, it may be the biggest part, but if you were married, you
would be a family man, etc....

| Well, in my instance, we bring up moral and sensibility problems, when
| being introduced into society.  In your examples, we bring up neither.

	What your brand of Christian views as moral is not what another brand
does. Let's let God determine it.

| The state has to accept it.  

	Then let the state deal with it.

| The laws/regulations of a state reflect upon the people. Public acceptance is 
| acceptance of the community by default, whether they like it or not.

	Ok.... lets do away with the laws that we don't like then. Of course
you know there will be no laws left, as criminals will do away with crimes,
etc.



Glen

    Re: .99
    'xactly.
    
    Re: .104
    Why couldn't you use those 10 years as a reference? I'm completely
    missing that point. You could certainly take them to a company that has
    no problem with gays (or hispancis, pet rock collectors, people with
    blue eyes, or whatever you were fired for) and proudly demonstrate your
    ten years of productive work! And, yes, if the economy's bad, and no
    one is hiring, you're SOL - but so are several thousand other people.
    
    Life sucks. Get a helmet.
    
    -bittercov

    
    re: .104

> You certainly won't be able to use them as a reference.

    Why not?  This is where you missed the boat.  See below.

> Dan, your logic is flawed.
    
    Nope, you've made one huge mistake, see below.

> Does this answer the above question on it being moronic? 

    No, it's still moronic to work where you are not wanted/appreciated. 
    If you chose to follow this course of action, well if the shoe fits...

> Will you be able to do it with a 10 year bad mark?

    How does having been fired for being homosexual equate with a bad mark?  
    In your own example you can still use your boss for a reference.  In fact 
    you'd be foolish not to.  Even if you can not use you immediate boss, you'd 
    be hard pressed to have ticked off everyone you worked for in those 
    ten years.  If you did, you were not fired for being homosexual....

> | What's the big deal?  Too many people are making mountains out of molehills.  
> 
> No, too many people aren't thinking it all the way through.

    'Fraid you're wrong bucko.  I've thought it through many times.  I just
    REFUSE to be a victim.  Some people like being a victim, from many of
    your comments, you seem to enjoy being a persecuted individual.  If this
    is true, have at it, but don't try to drag me into your morass of
    self-pity.

> | GROW UP! This is the real world and bad things happen to good people. Learn to
> | accept that, and overcome it.
> 
> How do you overcome a 10 year bad mark????

    See above.

> | > Gays adopting the children of their S.O.?
> 
> | Ehhh?  I could argue it either way.
> 
> Care to take a stab?

    Nah, I've got better things to do.
    
    
    re: 109
    
    SPSEG::COVINGTON - What's your first name?  It makes it easier to
    address you.  Very well written
    
    Dan

             <<< Note 155.101 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>| I think the intent is to keep gay rights activism from changing institutions 
>| that the people do not want changed- marriage, for one.  

>>	That seems to have already been changed by heterosexuals, with the 
>>things listed above. 

>    They were changed by taking racism out of the picture.  The
>    prerequisites are unchanged (one man and one woman).  As soon as gay
>    become minorities, then legally, they'll be in the same boat.
 
	An interesting excersize in circular logic. First you argue that
	the government should not pass legislation to protect the rights
	of Gays, then you argue that the only way for them to have their
	rights protected is for the government to label them as a minority.

	What's wrong with the idea that Gays are citizens "of the United
	States and of the State wherein they reside", and thus the requirement
	of equal protection is ALREADY the law?

>    It is not bigotry to refuse to condone all lifestyles. 
 
	It is bigotry to fail to apply the law equally to all citizens.

Jim

             <<< Note 155.106 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    If you fully agreed with my above statement (edited out), you should
>    realize the difference.  First of all, religion is protected by the
>    First and the Civil Rights act (if I remember it correctly).  

Steve, 	First you tell us that you agree with Dan regarding the "whining"
	from those who are treated unfairly and look to legislation to
	correct that treatment. Then you tell us that it can't happen to 
	you because you ARE protected by such legislation.

>Second,
>    a Christian IS who I am and what I am.  Though I do not use sexuality
>    labels to define my identity, I DO use Christianity as such.  My
>    identity is in Christ.  There is a difference.

	Second you tell us that homosexuality is not an identity, even 
	though Gays are telling you that it IS an identity for them. Then 
	you tell us that Christianity IS an identity because that's how you 
	identify yourself.

	I think you should consider applying for the position of Director
	of Hypocrisy with either Focus on the Family or Colorado for
	Family Values. They could certainly use your talents.

>    A nation's laws reflect upon the people of that nation.
 
	They certainly do. But it reflects even more when the highest law
	of a nation are ignored just because the group under discussion
	is unpopular.

Jim   
    

    re: .107
    
    Okay Glen, here is your chance to prove the zealotry and truth twisting
    of Dr. Dobson.  
    
    What has he said on this issue that makes him a zealot in your eyes?  
    What has he lied about?  I really am curious about this.  
    
    The Crackerbarrel thing may never have gone to court.  I thought it had
    been settled, though.  Maybe not.
    
    
    -steve

    Being hetero sexual means I may be friends with another woman, but I
    will never have the deep bond I have with my male SO.  Asking a person
    who is same-sex oriented to never have a chance for a relationship that
    has the depth of the relationships you have a chance for is asking that
    person to remain forever unfullfilled emotionally, even though they may
    be able to get their rocks off with a partner of the opposite sex.  Am
    I heterosexual because of who I boff?  Not at all, it is because of who
    I bond to for love and comfort and who I can truly find emotional and
    spiritual happiness with.  
    
    Denying someone the joys and sorrows of a life partner because the
    partner happens to be the same sex is IMO lacking the ability to see
    what a partnership is at best, and mean-spiritedly denying life and the
    dieties' will at worst.  I often wonder if some of the people in CFV
    have ever had a fullfilling relationship with their spouses as they
    seem not to feel that this is major piece of life and what it is.
    
    meg

    .99, Dan:

    >Glen, I would do exactly the same thing if it was homosexual, or
    >heterosexual.  Tough luck, get another job.

    Ahhh, but you're NOT homosexual, are you?  So you don't have to worry
    about having your job arbitrarily pulled out from under you due to
    your sexuality.  Comfortable position to be in.

    >In addition to which, why the hell would anyone want to work somewhere
    >they weren't wanted and appreciated.

    This probably describes half the workforce.  :^)

    >Too many people are making mountains out of molehills. 

    It may be a molehill to you, but to someone with a mortgage or a child,
    suddenly losing your job, ESPECIALLY in bad economic times, is no light
    matter.  And when hunting for that new job, it doesn't help to have the
    field artificially narrowed.

    >> How do YOU feel about gays in the military?
    >
    >Depends, do they want to serve and protect their country, or make a
    >political statement?

    Well, who's making this an issue here, the gays who wish to serve or
    the brass that wants them turfed out?

    >> Gays adopting the children of their S.O.?
    >
    >Ehhh?  I could argue it either way.

    See?  Here again, this may be no issue to you, but it's very important
    to same-sex couples trying to provide a stable financial and family
    environment for their children.

    jc

             

	>>Am
        >>I heterosexual because of who I boff?

	I think the answer to this is "Yes."

    re: .116
    
    Ditto.

    re: .155

>	The logic would be false though. 

    I already admitted that this is a possibility.  FWIW, this thought
    really is off center of the current discussion.
    
>	Dead? :-)  It is part of your make-up as a person.  [referring to
    sexual nature]

    It is a part of my make-up, it is not my identity.  There are those who
    would push for legislation and minority status due to one trait, which
    leaves me to believe that they wholely identify themsevles around their
    sexual traits/perferences.   

>	Not anymore it isn't. Under your plan, as you do agree with Dan,
>legislation is removed. All protections are gone. You can be fired for being a
>Christian. 

    What plan?  The only thing I've stated that needs to be repealed, is AA.
    
>	That is PART of you, but not the entire thing. There are other aspects
>to you as well. True, it may be the biggest part, but if you were married, you
>would be a family man, etc....

    You are wrong.  I am a new creature in God, therefore my entire
    identity is filtered through Him.  It is indeed the whole of who and
    what I am.  I only wish that I could perfectly mirror this in my life.
    
| Well, in my instance, we bring up moral and sensibility problems, when
| being introduced into society.  In your examples, we bring up neither.

>	What your brand of Christian views as moral is not what another brand
>does. Let's let God determine it.

    So, since there are factions who believe differently, we should abandon
    all morality, right?  After all, no one knows what is *really* right or
    wrong, moral or immoral, right?  Forget about what the mainstream has
    been consistently teaching since the first century.  Your base your
    argument on the exceptions, not the rule.
    
| The state has to accept it.  

>	Then let the state deal with it.

    I am the state.  The state's laws reflect upon me and everyone in that
    state.  You cannot separate the state from the people- they are one and
    the same. 
    
| The laws/regulations of a state reflect upon the people. Public acceptance is 
| acceptance of the community by default, whether they like it or not.

>	Ok.... lets do away with the laws that we don't like then. Of course
>you know there will be no laws left, as criminals will do away with crimes,
>etc.

    How do you make this leap of logic?

    Doing away with all laws would most certainly reflect horribly on the
    people of that state (not to mention the chaos that would ensue).
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 155.109 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..." >>>


| Why couldn't you use those 10 years as a reference? I'm completely
| missing that point. 

	You were fired maybe?

| You could certainly take them to a company that has no problem with gays (or 
| hispancis, pet rock collectors, people with blue eyes, or whatever you were 
| fired for) and proudly demonstrate your ten years of productive work! 

	How can you give a reference when you were fired? That seems a bit too
foolish for someone to do. They call the reference, you're screwed. 

| Life sucks. Get a helmet.

	Got one already....


Glen

    Given the fact that there are and have have been many closeted people
    who married a person of the opposite sex, and fail to have the deep
    abiding feelings that comes with being able to emotionally bond to
    one's life-partner, and wind up coming out later on, means that who you
    boff is not what you are.  
    
    There are peole who are situational homosexuals when they want release
    and there is no one of the opposite sex around who immediately revert
    to their true natures when out of the situation that caused a dearth of
    opposite-sex partners.  These people may have exhibited homosexual
    actions during this time, but they are not homosexuals in heart, mind
    body or spirit.  There have been studies of this done regarding prison
    inmates.  
    
    Tying only sexual practices to a person's orientation is to deny what a
    true sexual orientation is.
    
    meg  

    re: .111
    
 
>	An interesting excersize in circular logic. First you argue that
>	the government should not pass legislation to protect the rights
>	of Gays, 
    
    Wrong.  Marriage is not a right. 
    
    To be honest, your 14th Amendment application to this case, to be
    legally pedantic about it, is off.  Gays can marry.  However, they must
    marry within the confines of the definition of marriage for that state. 
    This means they must be of the proper age, they must not be related to
    the individual, and that the individual must be of the opposite sex. 
    All these things are  regulated by the state- preference that goes
    against the rules, does not have to accepted nor condoned by the state
    simply because certain people feel that they are different.
    
    If you don't wish to marry someone of the opposite sex, don't marry. 
    You are still allowed to live with who you like.
    
>    then you argue that the only way for them to have their
>	rights protected is for the government to label them as a minority.

    You are using the term "rights", when none are involved.
    
>	What's wrong with the idea that Gays are citizens "of the United
>	States and of the State wherein they reside", and thus the requirement
>	of equal protection is ALREADY the law?

    And they have equal protection, under the law.  Just because society
    does not wish to publically condone gay marriages, does not mean that
    anyone's rights are being violated.  In fact, it would be a violation
    of everyone else's sensibilities if you forced the states to accept a
    new definition of marriage without the consent of the people. 
    
    As I said, gays can marry under the law.  They must follow the same
    rules (equal application) that everyone else does, however.  Therein
    lies the rub.  They want *special* rules.  This is not equal
    application, this is special privileges.
    
>>    It is not bigotry to refuse to condone all lifestyles. 
 
>	It is bigotry to fail to apply the law equally to all citizens.

    And as I said above, current laws are applied equally.  Everyone
    follows the same rules.  That some do no like the rules is irrelevent,
    as long as no rights are being violated. 
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 155.110 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| > Does this answer the above question on it being moronic?

| No, it's still moronic to work where you are not wanted/appreciated.
| If you chose to follow this course of action, well if the shoe fits...

	Wow.... someone isn't reading. Go reread what I said there. It wouldn't
be moronic.

| How does having been fired for being homosexual equate with a bad mark?

	Very easy. Who is to say that is what they tell the next company? They
could say anything they wanted.

| In your own example you can still use your boss for a reference.  In fact
| you'd be foolish not to.  Even if you can not use you immediate boss, you'd
| be hard pressed to have ticked off everyone you worked for in those ten years.

	Minor nit.... but because someone is gay, it ain't their fault that
their boss gets ticked off about it. Now back to the program. If you do not use
a boss, you could use a coworker. You are then left with 2 options. Explain why
you won't list a boss, or lie that this coworker is a boss. On the application
you have two choices. You can say you left to find greener pastures, which then
you would have to explain why you left without a job in place, along with the
fact that you'd be lying. OR, you list why you were fired, and hope that the
new company isn't like the old one, and that if the new company calls the old
one, the stories match. So your options are to tell the truth, and quite
possibly not end up with the job, or lie. Both option can be due to ones race,
nationality, sexual orientation, gender, ANYTHING, under your version, Dan. It
just ain't going to work.

| If you did, you were not fired for being homosexual....

	Hello.... we were talking about being fired for being gay. But I also
included under your system it could be for nationality, etc. Do you feel the
same way for that as well?

| 'Fraid you're wrong bucko. I've thought it through many times. I just REFUSE 
| to be a victim.  

	You may refuse to admit you were victimized, but it does not change the
fact that if you were fired because of your nationality (which your plan would
allow this to happen), you were just that, victimized. You can't deny that.

| Some people like being a victim, from many of your comments, you seem to enjoy
| being a persecuted individual. If this is true, have at it, but don't try to 
| drag me into your morass of self-pity.

	Wow.... where the heck did this come from???? 

| > How do you overcome a 10 year bad mark????

| See above.

	I did... your way doesn't work.


Glen

| <<< Note 155.113 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| Okay Glen, here is your chance to prove the zealotry and truth twisting
| of Dr. Dobson.

| What has he said on this issue that makes him a zealot in your eyes?
| What has he lied about?  I really am curious about this.

	Steve, go into the CHRISTIAN_PERSPECTIVE file and look under the
Ammentment 2 topic. You will see what he has written. 



Glen

| <<< Note 155.116 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

| >>Am I heterosexual because of who I boff?

| I think the answer to this is "Yes."

	The answer is NO. If you never had sex with a woman, could you still be
heterosexual? Yup. Could someone who is heterosexual have sex with someone of
the same gender? Yup. How would this be possible? Easy.... the almighty orgasm
can have people do things they might not normally do. I believe they call it
lust. I had sex with women, but that in no way made me heterosexual. The
bonding emotionally, and physically are the keys here.


Glen

>    <<< Note 155.114 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
>>  Am
>>  I heterosexual because of who I boff?  Not at all, it is because of who
>>  I bond to for love and comfort and who I can truly find emotional and
>>  spiritual happiness with.  

	Meg, here you appear to be attempting to disassociate sexual
	activity/preference from the word "heterosexual" and redefine
	it in terms of bonding/love/happiness, etc.  I could bond to
	a woman and find emotional and spiritual happiness with her, in
	theory, but that wouldn't make me a homosexual.

             <<< Note 155.121 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    Wrong.  Marriage is not a right. 

	Slightly off topic, the specific reference in that reply was
	to the government recognizing Gays as a minority (most like
	via adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act).

	As for the 14th, it specifically covers privileges as well
	as rights.
   
>    To be honest, your 14th Amendment application to this case, to be
>    legally pedantic about it, is off.  Gays can marry.

	I love this argument. They can marry, they just can't marry the person
	that they want to marry, so there's no problem. The same argument
	was used to support the banning of inter-racial marriages. Are you
	SURE that you want to associate yourself with the folks that tols
	us it went against nature for the races to intermarry?

>    You are using the term "rights", when none are involved.
 
	The same rights that YOU are afforded as a Christian are most certainly
	involved. We've discussed the Cracker Barrel case, but there is another.
	The teacher that was fired because the school secretary THOUGHT he was
	Gay also had no recourse. The fact that he WASN'T Gay made no 
	difference. The mere accusation was enough to cost him his job and
	there was NOTHING he could do to get it back.

>    As I said, gays can marry under the law.  They must follow the same
>    rules (equal application) that everyone else does, however.  Therein
>    lies the rub.  They want *special* rules.  This is not equal
>    application, this is special privileges.
 
	Special rules like being able to marry the person that they love?
	As opposed to marrying someone that YOU approve of?
	You mean special rules like that?

Jim

| <<< Note 155.118 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>


| It is a part of my make-up, it is not my identity.  

	It is PART of your identity. If you talk about your wife/girlfriend,
aren't you letting others see that you're heterosexual?

| There are those who would push for legislation and minority status due to one 
| trait, which leaves me to believe that they wholely identify themsevles 
| around their sexual traits/perferences.

	Are they the ones doing that, or are others doing that for them? You
started off first stating trait, but then went directly to sexual. Is it a
sexual trait that wants to be able to keep the job they have? Nope. Is it a
sexual trait that wants one to be able to keep their housing? Nope. But what do
people say all too often? They mention the sex part of it all. Get past the sex
part, which is only PART of the person, and look at the rest of the picture.
You keep saying your heterosexuality is only part of your make-up, yet you keep
tieing sexual traits into the whole homosexual. Why do you do that? 

| >	Not anymore it isn't. Under your plan, as you do agree with Dan,
| >legislation is removed. All protections are gone. You can be fired for being a
| >Christian.

| What plan?  The only thing I've stated that needs to be repealed, is AA.

	You agreed with Dan, who said all legislation should be done away with.
Seeing you agreed, I got the impression you wanted more than AA repealed. At
least with Dan's plan he's looking for all things to be repealed, but with
yours it's a pick and choose method. Funny how you stay protected under your
plan.

| So, since there are factions who believe differently, we should abandon all 
| morality, right? After all, no one knows what is *really* right or wrong, 
| moral or immoral, right?  

	Steve, if you have your beliefs, then YOU live by them. 

| Forget about what the mainstream has been consistently teaching since the 
| first century.  

	This is funny. You state above EVERYTHING about you is filtered through
God, that your whole life is Him, yet you revert back to the mainstream. Gee,
Steve, seems like you're now relying on humans as well. 

| >	Ok.... lets do away with the laws that we don't like then. Of course
| >you know there will be no laws left, as criminals will do away with crimes,
| >etc.

| How do you make this leap of logic? Doing away with all laws would most 
| certainly reflect horribly on the people of that state (not to mention the 
| chaos that would ensue).

	The leap is made due to the public voicing their opinions. By the time
we're done, no laws will exist. Or are you going to exclude certain people from
being included in the public?



Glen

| <<< Note 155.121 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>


| As I said, gays can marry under the law. They must follow the same rules 
| (equal application) that everyone else does, however. Therein lies the rub.  
| They want *special* rules. This is not equal application, this is special 
| privileges.

	Uh huh..... Steve, is it a special privelage to marry the person you
love? 

	Btw.... back when you and your other forfathers first took over the
country, who's rules did we do away with? Why did we do away with them? Aren't
all of the laws we have today all based on something that wasn't there, or
things we didn't forsee? 



Glen

    .121
    
    >As I said, gays can marry under the law.  They must follow the same
    >rules (equal application) that everyone else does, however.  Therein
    >lies the rub.  They want *special* rules.  This is not equal
    >application, this is special privileges.

    There's that old "special rules" strawman, again.  I knew we'd see it
    sooner or later.

    Steve...heterosexuals enjoy the right (or freedom) to marry whomever
    they *want* to, provided the other party is willing.  Gays do not
    enjoy that same freedom.  Sounds to me like heteros enjoy *special*
    rules.

    I defy anyone to show me how legalizing same-sex marriages is any
    more "special" than legalized opposite-sex marriages.

    I defy anyone to show me how prohibiting discrimination on the basis
    of sexual orientation applies only to gays and lesbians.

    jc

| <<< Note 155.125 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

| I could bond to a woman and find emotional and spiritual happiness with her, 
| in theory, but that wouldn't make me a homosexual.

	Agreed. Would, or could the bonding with a friend be on the same exact
plane it would be with a man, Di? 


Glen

	Thanks topes..... :-0

    re .125
    
    Could you bond emotionally and spiritually in the same way you could
    with a man?  Somehow I doubt it.  Deep, abiding friendships with women,
    yes.  I have had a few, and still have a tight bond with several
    friends of the SS, but it isn't the same as a life-partnering bond, any
    more than a zucchini is a replacement for certain anatomical parts I
    happen to have fond feelings for.  
    
    meg

    Re: .122
    
    About the two options you give:
    
    Letting stand the assumption that there are only two options...
    
    Bingo! To tell the truth, or not to tell the truth? Sounds easy to me.
    Hope your story matches your reference? If you've told the truth,
    you're set! If you haven't, then you have something to worry about.
    
    You're saying you can't use a reference because you were fired?
    Fired for incompetence, of course not!
    Fired because you were gay, why not?
    
    I'd certainly hire someone who was fired from his/her last job for
    being gay...assuming, of course, that they're qualified.
    
    If someone said during an interview, "I told my boss I was gay, and
    he/she fired me" then I'd add a plus mark to that person's resume for having
    some serious self-confidence!

    re: .112
    
>Steve, 	First you tell us that you agree with Dan regarding the "whining"
>	from those who are treated unfairly and look to legislation to
>	correct that treatment. Then you tell us that it can't happen to 
>	you because you ARE protected by such legislation.
    
    The fact of the matter is, it CAN happen to me- regardless of
    legislation.  I never said it couldn't.  It happens every day to
    Christians, regardless of the First Amendment or the Civil Rights act.
    
    You see, the big difference is that religious protection/freedom is in
    the First Amendment specifically, it is not added on legislation to
    protect a single group of people.  The FF valued this freedom enough to
    make it Amendment 1.  If you can make a similar case for out of the
    ordinary sexual preferences, then I will consider the two equal in
    regards to the law of the land.
    
    I don't see the argument of gay marriages as "corretive treatment", but
    one of special exclusion to the rules due to sexual practices.
    
>	Second you tell us that homosexuality is not an identity, even 
>	though Gays are telling you that it IS an identity for them. 
    
    Actually, Glen agreed with me on this not being a specific identity,
    but only a trait.
    
>    Then 
>	you tell us that Christianity IS an identity because that's how you 
>	identify yourself.

    But I don't ask the world to identify me in any specific way.  I don't
    ask to be considered "special" due to this, nor do I ask society to
    change all the rules because I am a Christian.
    
    You bring up the very essense of what I am trying to get at (and are
    touching upon the idea I brought up in regards to me not being <insert
    bias>sexual) in the above.  We cannot call ourselves a minority by law,
    nor expect our lifestyle to be legislated into law.  I call myself
    Christian.  Some call themselves homosexual.  Lifestyle is not reason
    enough to force legislation on a given state.  Sexual perference is not
    a viable legal reason to change existing institutions recognized by the
    state and regulated by the state.  It is not reason enough to alter all
    the rules.
    
    You see, my lifestyle is not heterosexual, it is Christian.  This is
    the definition that says it all to me.  But even so, it is not reason
    enough to ask everyone to change the rules,  just because I view things
    differently.  I would not ask that there be official recognition of
    Christianity at work under the guise of "valuing differences"- though
    indeed it is a viable difference that should be valued.  I cannot ask
    everyone to accept my beliefs, nor even respect them.  They have every
    right not to believe, accept or even respect them up to the point of
    violating my Constitutional rights (at which point, it is ME, the
    citizen of the US, that is being violated).
    
    Basically, I view it like this.  You have every right to believe that
    your lifestyle is moral, normal for you, and acceptable to you.  You do
    no have the right to force your definitions off on others who do not
    view it the same way, via law (which is what I see happening).
     
>	I think you should consider applying for the position of Director
>	of Hypocrisy with either Focus on the Family or Colorado for
>	Family Values. They could certainly use your talents.

    I'll give you the same challenge I gave Glen.  Show me what Dobson has
    done/said that makes him a hypocrite, liar, or a zealot. 
    
>>    A nation's laws reflect upon the people of that nation.
 
>	They certainly do. But it reflects even more when the highest law
>	of a nation are ignored just because the group under discussion
>	is unpopular.

    This is ridiculous.  First, the highest law of the land is not being
    ignored.  Second, it isn't a matter of popularity, it is a matter of
    special privilege being turned down by society.
    
    
    -steve  

    
      Hey, Jim Percival - step back a second.  The gay/straight case
     is different from the black/white.  The key question is, can I
     marry you ?  No.  Can Glen ? No.  Equal.  Can I marry Vanna White ?
     Yes.  Can Glen ?  Yes - equal.  Now try it black/white - not equal !
    
      bb

    re: .123
    
    That will do me little good, Glen, since I will not know what exactly
    you see as a twisting of the truth.  I need specifics.  At least give
    me a note number (and the node name to CP, I don't have that entry in
    my library).
    
    Thanks,
    
    -steve

>>	Agreed. Would, or could the bonding with a friend be on the same exact
>>plane it would be with a man, Di? 

	No, and that's where the boffing part comes in.  Because I am
	a heterosexual - because I would only consider having sex with men,
	my relationship with a woman would not be on the same plane.  That
	is the point.  I am a heterosexual because of my sexual preference.
	Not because of bonding/love, etc.

    .136
    
    >You see, the big difference is that religious protection/freedom is in
    >the First Amendment specifically, it is not added on legislation to
    >protect a single group of people.

    Steve, you continue to miss the valid point that Jim is making.  You
    claim that "Lifestyle is not reason enough to force legislation on a 
    given state," and yet that is exactly what was done in the First
    Amendment (added-on legislation to protect a single group of people).

    >But I don't ask the world to identify me in any specific way.  I don't
    >ask to be considered "special" due to this, nor do I ask society to
    >change all the rules because I am a Christian.

    You don't have to ask; it's already been done for you.  Now that you're
    in the comfy chair, you've no need to care about the others.

    jc
    

| <<< Note 155.134 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>



| any more than a zucchini is a replacement for certain anatomical parts I
| happen to have fond feelings for.

	meg.... too funny..... :-)

    
    .137:
    
    bb, can you marry the person you want to, provided she is willing?
    Yes.  Can Glen marry the person he wants to?  No.  Therefore, not
    equal.
    
    If same-sex marriages become legal, will you have the same right as
    Glen to marry whomever you choose, male or female?  Yes.  Therefore,
    equal.
    
    jc
    

| <<< Note 155.135 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..." >>>



| Fired for incompetence, of course not!
| Fired because you were gay, why not?

	For fear of not getting the job in this company. Something a
heterosexual probably wouldn't have to deal with.

| I'd certainly hire someone who was fired from his/her last job for being gay.

	Would all? Nope. What are the chances for someone who was gay wouldn't
get a job for their being gay, compared to someone who wouldn't get a job
because they're heterosexual? Pretty close to zero for heterosexuals, wouldn't
you say? Now lets take race into consideration, as you also agree with Dan's
plan. Or how about nationality? They too wouldn't be covered. Too many people
would be fired due to their make-up, not on their ability. Too many people
wouldn't be hired due only to their make-up. 

| ..assuming, of course, that they're qualified.

	Agreed.

| If someone said during an interview, "I told my boss I was gay, and he/she 
| fired me" then I'd add a plus mark to that person's resume for having some 
| serious self-confidence!

	Ahhhh.... and you make up the majority of people who own companies?
Come on now.




Glen

    Never claimed to be a member of any majority (esp. any organized by Mr.
    Falwell.)
    
    I'm just saying that there shouldn't be any protection for special
    groups by the guv'mint any more than there should be discrimination
    against by same said government.
    
    Hopefully, this will lead you to the conclusion that I think the
    proposed Colorado laws are bad, as well as any laws specifically
    offering any group greater protection than another. (e.g. AA)

| <<< Note 155.136 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| You see, the big difference is that religious protection/freedom is in the 
| First Amendment specifically, it is not added on legislation to protect a 
| single group of people.  

	Ahhh.... so the religious group of people don't make up a single group?
Come on Steve. Try to convince that to a group of people who are non-religious.
You couldn't do it. 

| If you can make a similar case for out of the ordinary sexual preferences, 
| then I will consider the two equal in regards to the law of the land.

	Thanks again Steve for proving once again that your make-up is not just
God, like you claimed. It goes much deeper than that.

| Actually, Glen agreed with me on this not being a specific identity, but only 
| a trait.

	Wrong. I said it is part of your make-up, not the whole thing. If you
were beaten because you are gay, then it becomes specific. If you are raped
because you are a woman, then the woman trait becomes specific. Traits make up
the whole person, but they can be talked about specifically.

| You see, my lifestyle is not heterosexual, it is Christian.  

	Being a Christian is only a PART of you. That's plain to see by you
relying on communities to make rules, relying on laws in the Constitution
(which at one time did not exist either, but then they were there)



Glen

             <<< Note 155.136 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    You see, the big difference is that religious protection/freedom is in
>    the First Amendment specifically,

	Please point to the wording in the First Amendment that says
	that emplyers can not discriminate against you becuase of
	your religion. It took the Civil Rights Act to make that illegal.
	The First places prohibitions on the GOVERNMENT.

>Lifestyle is not reason
>    enough to force legislation on a given state. 

	And yet YOU were the first one to mention the Civil Rights Act
	and its protections for Christians. Now why was that?

> Sexual perference is not
>    a viable legal reason to change existing institutions recognized by the
>    state and regulated by the state.  It is not reason enough to alter all
>    the rules.
 
	Maybe, maybe not. But one very GOOD reason it to change the rules to
	ensure that all citizens are treated equally.

>I would not ask that there be official recognition of
>    Christianity at work under the guise of "valuing differences"- though
>    indeed it is a viable difference that should be valued.

	But you STILL have recourse under Federal Law if you are fired or
	discriminated against because of your lifestyle choice. Why should
	Gays be any less protected than you are today?

>You do
>    no have the right to force your definitions off on others who do not
>    view it the same way, via law (which is what I see happening).
 
	Yet, a religious lifestyle is protected via Federal law. How do
	you justify this?

>    This is ridiculous.  First, the highest law of the land is not being
>    ignored.  Second, it isn't a matter of popularity, it is a matter of
>    special privilege being turned down by society.
 
	What special privelege? Let's get specific.

Jim

| <<< Note 155.137 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>


| Hey, Jim Percival - step back a second.  The gay/straight case is different 
| from the black/white. The key question is, can I marry you? No. Can Glen? No. 
| Equal.  

	Let's use your logic bb. Can you marry the person you love, who you
want to spend your entire life with? Yes. Can I? No. The black and white
analogy most certainly does work. Your own logic proves that.


Glen

| <<< Note 155.138 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>


| That will do me little good, Glen, since I will not know what exactly you see 
| as a twisting of the truth. I need specifics. At least give me a note number 
| (and the node name to CP, I don't have that entry in my library).

	LGP30::CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE


	When you get in, do a dir/title=A2


	I'd show it to you specifically, but for me, anyway, it is unreachable.
You will see my notes in there on the subject.



Glen

| <<< Note 155.139 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| No, and that's where the boffing part comes in.  

	Di, taking the sex part of it out, could you bond emotionally,
physically, on the same plane with a friend, as you could with the man
you want to spend your life with? Like I said, I had boffed with women, 
but I wasn't straight. The bonding is the key.



Glen

    
    .149

	...taking the sex part of it out, could you bond emotionally,
        physically, on the same plane with a friend...
    
    What kind of plane?  A DC-10?  A Beechcraft Bonanza?
    
    

Crazy Glue helps with physical bonding.

    I'll take the A-36 any day...

    
    
    
    RE: Crazy glue......  Elmers dries clear though....  :*)
    

    and dissolves in water, too...

>>	Di, taking the sex part of it out, could you bond emotionally,
>>physically, on the same plane with a friend, as you could with the man
>>you want to spend your life with? 

	How could I take "the sex part of it out" and still answer the 
	question?  How could I ignore sex when considering the man I want
	to spend my life with (assuming such a man existed, which is
	quite the assumption) and then use him in a comparison against
	a woman friend?  That doesn't make sense.

	But anyways, I still contend that the answer to Meg's question,
	as she framed it, is "yes".  One is a heterosexual or a homosexual
	or a bisexual, or whatever, because of who one instinctively wants
	to engage in sex with, not because of bonding.

    Di,
    
    If something happened to your life partner that prevented "normal sex"
    would it change your bond with that person?  I think that this is the
    kicker here.  

>    If something happened to your life partner that prevented "normal sex"
>    would it change your bond with that person?

Like Crazy Glue?

>>    If something happened to your life partner that prevented "normal sex"
>>    would it change your bond with that person?  I think that this is the
>>    kicker here.  

	This is sort of vague, I think.  "Change" my bond?  Well, that
	depends on what you mean by "bond".  The relationship, which 
	includes all things physical and emotional, would change in some
	way, of course.  Does the "bond" include the physical connection,
	as you're defining it?  If so, then yes.

    
      Well, you want to write 'C' code.  I want to practice cannibalism.
     If you are allowed to do what you want, and I am NOT allowed to do
     what I want, wouldn't that be unequal by the very same Percival-
     Silva argument ?  So anti-cannibalism laws, and in fact all laws,
     would be unconstitutional.  To bring a less absurd example, suppose
     Binder wants to marry his MacIntosh (sorry if he already has) ?
     No, the 14th Amendment only says that the laws governing behavior
     must be the same for everybody.  It does not mean different
     behaviors must be treated the same.  There's never been such a ruling,
     nor is there any evidence the Reconstruction Era USA intended any
     such meaning.
    
      It is obvious to anyone who studies people that the ancient types
     of institutions governing sexual relations came into being in order
     to deal with the problems of responsibility surrounding human
     reproduction.  If humans were pollinated by insects, it would be
     utterly meaningless to talk of gay/straight, or of marriage.  But
     in humans, replication is tedious (although it has its moments),
     and in societies, it is everybody's business.  Right now, the USA
     is failing in this respect.
    
      It is for that reason that I reject totally the argument that I must
     be a bigot to doubt the wisdom of tinkering with marriage in this way,
     at this time.  In fact, I am not worried about gays at all - I am
     worried about straights.  In other replies here, I have pointed out
     that in other countries (Denmark, the Netherlands) where homosexual
     relations are prevalent and acceptable, there HAVE been legal
     recognitions of this fact, but no sovereign state does this through
     the institution of marriage.  People have asked if I really think
     extending marriage in this way will have bad repercussions among
     straights.  The answer is, yes I do.  The effect would clearly be
     to accelerate the failure of households to form, an increase in
     parentless children, a fall in the savings rate, and an acceleration
     in the general deterioration of our society and its morality,
     AMONG STRAIGHTS.  To an extent that would more than offset any
     general improvement in gay-straight or gay-gay understanding.
    
      Those who say I am a bigot claim that I hate.  Nope - I hate nobody.
     I fear - fear for my own kind, not yours.  You didn't cause the
     extensive collapse of morality in the USA, overwhelmingly a straight
     young male phenomenon.  But I fear you will exacerbate the problem.
    
      bb
     

    re: .159
    
    The difference between writing C and eating your co-worker (I'll just
    leave that sitting right there) is that one act is consensual, one is
    not. There is currently no distinction in Federal or State law defining
    the difference between consensual and non-consensual crimes, but it's
    not hard to see that a difference exists.
    
    Consensual: All parties reasonably affected by the act consent to said
    act. (drinking)
    
    Nonconsensual: Not all parties reasonably affected agree. (drinking and
    driving)

                     <<< Note 155.137 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>The gay/straight case
>     is different from the black/white. 

	No, it's not.

	There was a time when several States prohibited inter-racial
	marriages. The arguments for this prohibition are virtually
	the same ones now being offered supporting the prohibition
	of same-sex marriages. The emotional levels in those States
	at the time were just about as high as they are now regarding
	Gays. There is very little, if any difference.

Jim

                     <<< Note 155.159 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
>      Well, you want to write 'C' code.  I want to practice cannibalism.
>     If you are allowed to do what you want, and I am NOT allowed to do
>     what I want, wouldn't that be unequal by the very same Percival-
>     Silva argument ? 

	Very poor argument. When discussing the "equal protection of
	the laws", you neccessarily must be discussing the SAME laws.

	You can not, rationally, look to very DIFFERENT laws, compare them
	to one another, and then declare unequal treatment.

	You'll need to do far better than this if you really want to
	contribute to the discussion.

Jim

    
    this recent thread of discussion reminds me of my best friend
    (and roommate) in college, who was gay. he was also one of the
    most atrociously bigoted people I've ever met. he frequently
    (in fact, usually) used the "n word" in relation to african-
    americans, and once told me he "doesn't trust people who have
    blonde hair but whose eyes aren't blue".

    i used to try to get him to change his ways by asking him how
    he liked to be referred to as a "fag" and bashed for his
    sexuality, to which he would reply "well, that's different".

    i suppose i could ask how some of the christians who think
    it's just fine to bash gays like being bashed for their
    religious beliefs (which is just about the ultimate case
    of being bashed for behavior/preference, is it not?).
    but, i suppose they'll tell me that's different too.

    people cling to their bigotry like velcro. i'm not immune,
    of course. i'd be hard pressed to find something nice to
    say about a democrat...

    -b

    Well, I keep getting booted out of soapbox for some reason, so don't
    expect any long replies from me.  I'm hopelessly behind in this
    discussion, I'm afraid.
    
    I'll try and respond to a few of the notes aimed at me, if I can stay
    logged in long enough (and the note is not long).  I'm afraid it
    will be pick and chose responding for a while from this end of the
    network.  8^)   
    
    
    -steve

	>>so don't
        >>expect any long replies from me. 


	<look of devastation>

    
    And here I am...bucket of tar in one hand...bag of feathers in the
    other...what will I do now?
    

	>>...what will I do now?

    i would say applauding is right out.
    

    A sneeze would be entertaining.

    > Well, I keep getting booted out of soapbox for some reason, so don't
    > expect any long replies from me.
    
    this is, of course, terrible news. but somehow, we'll find
    the strength to cope...
    
    -b

    
      re, .161 - well, I don't agree that the arguments are the same
     ones.  In fact, there have been several entirely different lines
     of argument both for, and against, all sorts of laws which have
     the effect of restricting sexual behavior, so I don't even know
     "the same as what".  The key remains the same - equal standing,
     AND EQUAL ENFORCEMENT of laws (which the Amendment refers to).
    
      Your argument is not convincing.  The emotion is yours, not mine.
     You claim a violation of the 14th.  I see none.  Neither do the
     courts.
    
      My example deals with only one law.  I don't understand that
     argument either.  I claimed that under the Percival-absurdity
     principle, the laws against cannibalism violate the 14th.  The
     argument is exactly yours, except that it is more obviously silly,
     and yours is silly in a subtler way because of a trick in the
     English language, demonstrated by Glen.  He is, of course, correct
     that the marriage laws do not give him the "right to do what he wants"
     but does give a straight "the right to do what he wants", and have
     it recognized as the bond-for-the-purpose-of-reproduction we call
     "marriage".  It also denies it to Binder and his Mac.  But it is not
     a reasonable reading of the 14th Amendment that it prohibits a state
     from doing this.  It IS a reasonable (though not ironclad) reading
     that it prohibits laws against inter-racial marriage.
    
      bb

        > It also denies it to Binder and his Mac.

    His mouse port is understandably devastated.

    -b

| <<< Note 155.159 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>


	bb.... want to say.... what a mouthful! :-)

| Well, you want to write 'C' code.  I want to practice cannibalism. If you are 
| allowed to do what you want, and I am NOT allowed to do what I want, wouldn't 
| that be unequal by the very same Percival-Silva argument? So anti-cannibalism 
| laws, and in fact all laws, would be unconstitutional.  

	One small nit.... the above makes no sense. I had thought marriage was
to happen not to join any 2 people together, but to join any 2 people who love
each other. (maybe that is what is wrong with marriage today... but that's
another topic. :-) If that is the case, then if you want to marry someone you
love, you can. I can not. Your theory of having it be equal becomes false.

| It is obvious to anyone who studies people that the ancient types of 
| institutions governing sexual relations came into being in order to deal with 
| the problems of responsibility surrounding human reproduction.  

	Humans can reproduce without having two people of oppisite sex getting
it on. Human reproduction does not have to end cuz people of the same gender
marry.

| It is for that reason that I reject totally the argument that I must be a 
| bigot to doubt the wisdom of tinkering with marriage in this way, at this 
| time.  

	Quick question, bb..... who ever said you were a bigot? 

| People have asked if I really think extending marriage in this way will have 
| bad repercussions among straights. The answer is, yes I do. The effect would 
| clearly be to accelerate the failure of households to form, an increase in
| parentless children, a fall in the savings rate, and an acceleration in the 
| general deterioration of our society and its morality, AMONG STRAIGHTS.  

	bb.... while the above does sound pretty bad.... could you now show us
examples of how this will happen?


Glen

| <<< Note 155.170 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>


| English language, demonstrated by Glen.  He is, of course, correct that the 
| marriage laws do not give him the "right to do what he wants" but does give a 
| straight "the right to do what he wants", 

	Do what he wants? Come on bb.... it's your own logic being thrown back
at you. Do what the other is able to do is your argument. Gays can marry the
same as a het. A het marrys for love, a gay can not. Just cuz your own logic is
flawed, don't come cryin to me. :-)

| and have it recognized as the bond-for-the-purpose-of-reproduction we call
| "marriage".  

	Does everyone in this country believe that bb? If not, then are you
saying this is just your belief? I think this is key. If it is just your
belief, then it puzzles me as you seem, anyway, to be applying it as the tell
all reason for the rest of the country. Please help clear this us as I think by
doing so, we can put a lot of this behind us. 



Glen

    Given the high number of "DINKS" in this country today (Dual income
    no kid families) it is obvious that not all heterosexual people marry
    for reproductive purposes.  I also agree with Glen, that marriage
    should be between two people who love each other.  
    
    Now lets go on to the violence piece of this "resolution."
    
    VIOLENCE:  The community understands that the primary force behind
    violence in our community is the disintegration of the nuclear family.
    The majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by youth between the
    ages of 18 and 25.  The high representation of blacks and Hispanics
    in our jails and detention centers is a direct result of children
    growing up without fathers in the home and a generally less active,
    positive family unit in those communities.  These facts have led to an
    environment where young minorities are perceived to be more dangerous
    and may lead to unfair and even outright racist treatment.
    
    To me this is a perception that people of color lack the same "family
    values" as those of CFV.  Never mind the gays, we already know how CFV
    feels about them, look at this statement around people who are
    obviously different from Tebedo and Perkins.
    
    meg

    re: .130
    
>    Steve...heterosexuals enjoy the right (or freedom) to marry whomever
>    they *want* to, provided the other party is willing.  
    
    This is not true.  For an extreme example, I cannot marry a 12 year old
    girl, due to age restrictive laws (laws that infringe upon my, and the
    12 year old's privileges)- even if she is really jived about marrying
    me.  I cannot marry a non-human entity, no matter how much I love it or
    am attracted to it.  I cannot marry another man.  I cannot marry a
    sibling, no matter how moral I view such an act, or how much I desire
    to.  
    
    If Jim's argument wins out in SCOTUS, we will see community standards
    made illegal. 
    
>    Gays do not
>    enjoy that same freedom.  Sounds to me like heteros enjoy *special*
>    rules.

    Nonsense.  Just because marriage, according to all original marriage
    laws in the US, does not include every whim of any extremist group on
    society, does not make it unfair.  Marriage, by definition, has always
    been one man and one woman, at least in this country.  This is backed
    up by court rulings (see Murphy v. Ramsey & Others, 1885, for one).
    
    Trying to reinterpret this institution based on emotional and/or
    physical attraction outside the norm of society, is a disengenuous use
    of the 14th Amendment and the term "privileges", IMO.
    
>    I defy anyone to show me how legalizing same-sex marriages is any
>    more "special" than legalized opposite-sex marriages.

    Simple.  It redefines what legally constitutes a marriage, as well as
    a family.  It overthrows a tradition many view as being sanctified by
    God.  If gay marriages are legalized, churches may be forced, down the
    road, to perform such ceremonies- which are clearly against Biblical
    doctrine. 
    
>    I defy anyone to show me how prohibiting discrimination on the basis
>    of sexual orientation applies only to gays and lesbians.

    This is is a specious argument.  I don't consider sexual orientation,
    outside the norm, as being a protected privilege.  Society has the
    right and the duty to be discriminating against *behaviors* that go
    against their morality.  When you legislate away such morality as a
    society, making it illegal to discriminate against a *behavior* or
    *lifestyle*, you are basically outlawing community standards and all
    protective devices set up for the good of that society.  Even if you do
    not agree with one of them, you have to look at the bigger picture of
    what you will affect with such legislation.
    
    Legislative evolution is not a pretty thing. 
    
    In the case of traditional marriage, there should be some
    discrimination, else it loses its specific meaning.  Do I expect
    Harvard to accept me into its ranks when I have a D average in high
    school?  No, that'd be silly.  But this is just what this "freedom" 
    argument boils down to.  "I feel that my lifestyle is perfectly fine, 
    even though society, in general, condemns it.  Therefore, since 
    *I* feel it is okay, along with others who think and fell as 
    I do; I will force my values on society by legislation,
    even though my situation does not meet the common criteria needed to be
    considered valid by said institution." 
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 155.175 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>



| Nonsense. Just because marriage, according to all original marriage laws in 
| the US, does not include every whim of any extremist group on society, does 
| not make it unfair. Marriage, by definition, has always been one man and one 
| woman, at least in this country.  

	Steve, you just killed your marrying a 12 year old story. Above you use
a MAN and a WOMAN. Not a man and a child. 

	Now, if you remeber, when this country was ruled by the British, we had
all the rules/laws that they always lived by. We did not like some of them, so
we made our own. (after a war of course) We started anew. So using the term
always is kind of useless, cuz we reinvented the wheel from what it was. 



Glen

    No, Glen, I didn't kill my "12 year old story".  In fact, if you will
    look close enough, you will see I actually supported the point of my
    aforementioned example.
    
    
    -steve

How is Michael Jackson (the single-malt expert) like Michael Jackson
(the entertainer)?



They're both very fond of twelve-year-olds.

    
      OK, Glen - actually my problem is we're confusing two arguments.
     One is whether the 14th Amendment restricts what laws states can
     have in this area - whether restricting sexual behavior or marriage
     constitutes violating "Equal protection of the Laws".  I think
     everybody understands why Jim Percival thinks these are violations,
     and why I don't think so.  But of course, neither of us think that
     any constitutional provision would prohibit a state from ALLOWING
     any sexual practice by legislation or its absence.  So the other
     question is, given a heterosexual majority and a majoritarian
     democracy, what is the wisest policy ?  I've argued before that the
     best people to make rules which primarily affect them, but the
     greater society only tangentially, are usually those most affected,
     but with the proviso that where the less-affected majority perceives
     a danger to THEM, they can veto, by voting 'No'.  If gays came up
     with some sort of consensual-union legislation like the Danes and
     Dutch, and demonstrated it was to their taste, and had no affect
     on the larger community, you would find the reaction to be, 'OK, so
     what ?  It's your party. You pick the tunes.'  What we are worried
     about is OUR problems, not yours.  Young heterosexual men in the USA
     routinely impregnate young women, promise them everything, then quit
     their job, blow town, take drugs, turn violent, go to jail.  This is
     not new, but the US stats are unprecedented here or elsewhere, and
     they are getting worse.  Bad as they are among white boys, they are
     appalling among black boys.  Half of young black Americans do time.
     And most black kids have no fathers.  If trends continue, the same
     horrible stats are coming for whites, with no end in sight.  I know,
     gays certainly didn't cause the collapse !!!!  If you could show that
     marriage would be better among hets if it included gays, you might
     even convince me !  But, as you know, I distrust change.
    
      Meanwhile, to respond to Meg in .174 - I don't get it ?  Do you
     dispute the statement you quoted, or do you agree with it ?  Yes, it
     paints a terrible picture of black families.  Compared to the Bill
     Cosby show ?  And who is looking truth in the eye, and who is
     fantasizing ?  Not that whites, to a lesser degree, aren't going
     down the same big drain.
    
      bb

    
    what did bill buckner and michael jackson have in common?
    
    
    
    they both wore one glove for no apparent reason.
    
    -b

                     <<< Note 155.170 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
>      Your argument is not convincing.

	Those who do not wish to be convinced, can not be convinced.

>  The emotion is yours, not mine.

	Emotion is the foundation of your argument. Pure logic dictates
	that the government should not prohibit same-sex marriages.

>     You claim a violation of the 14th.  I see none. 

	There are none so blind........

> Neither do the
>     courts.
 
	Actually one court has agreed. Hawaii currenly, under court order,
	recognizes same-sex marriages.
   
>      My example deals with only one law.

	Two laws were reffered to (in the case of C, freedom of expression. 
	In the case of cannabalism, murder), did you err?

>I claimed that under the Percival-absurdity
>     principle, the laws against cannibalism violate the 14th.

	And your claim is rubish. Your assumption that the basis of
	my argument is "do what you want" is completely wrong, therefore
	any subsequent "claims" that you make based on that assumption
	are completely wrong.

>  The
>     argument is exactly yours,

	No, it is not (see above).

>     but does give a straight "the right to do what he wants", and have
>     it recognized as the bond-for-the-purpose-of-reproduction we call
>     "marriage".

	Please provide an example of a State marriage law that REQUIRES
	reproduction.

>It IS a reasonable (though not ironclad) reading
>     that it prohibits laws against inter-racial marriage.
 
	Why? You can't have it both ways. Either the government CAN control
	who a person marries, or it can not.

Jim

| <<< Note 155.177 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| No, Glen, I didn't kill my "12 year old story".  In fact, if you will
| look close enough, you will see I actually supported the point of my
| aforementioned example.

	Steve, apparently I don't see it. How about pointing what is obvious to
you to me? 


Glen

    I fail to see how making marriage open to homosexual unions is going to
    change irresponsible behavior by heterosexual males for good or for
    ill.  It is to me apples and oranges.  
    
    Again, there are more single-parent families out there who's kids don't 
    get into trouble than those who do.  Blaming single parenthood the
    single most important factor in criminality is IMO blaming people who
    were willing to "choose life" for having the little darlings.  If boys
    being raised primarily by women were the main factor, then why wasn't
    this a problem in the 40's, the 30's, the 20's, the 1800's? and further
    and further back?  This has been all too common in the world for many
    centuries, particularly during times of war, pioneering, social changes
    (eg the industrial revolution), times of famine, etc.  
    
    I read the section on violence as blatantly racist, classist, and
    mostly another attempt on CFV to put down people who aren't white,
    upper middle-class, married, and following the spiritual beliefs of
    those who founded CFV.  
    
    meg

        > I fail to see how making marriage open to homosexual unions is going to
    > change irresponsible behavior by heterosexual males for good or for
    > ill.  It is to me apples and oranges.  

    i agree 100%!

    this thread is loaded with plain old bigotry, pure and simple.
    i wish folks would at least have the guts to admit it and
    stop with these ridiculous arguments! if you can't tolerate
    homosexuals, it isn't them that has the problem!!!!

    -b

| <<< Note 155.179 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>


| One is whether the 14th Amendment restricts what laws states can have in this 
| area - whether restricting sexual behavior or marriage constitutes violating 
| "Equal protection of the Laws".  

	bb.... this is confusing. Say two guys wanna have anal sex. This is
something that is used to prevent them from getting married? A guy and a woman
can have anal sex, and it will not prevent them from being married? How can 
sexual behavior even come into play? Anything can be done by either group. Am I
viewing this correctly?

| So the other question is, given a heterosexual majority and a majoritarian
| democracy, what is the wisest policy?  

	The policy that works for all. 

| appalling among black boys.  Half of young black Americans do time.
| And most black kids have no fathers.  If trends continue, the same
| horrible stats are coming for whites, with no end in sight.  I know,
| gays certainly didn't cause the collapse !!!!  If you could show that
| marriage would be better among hets if it included gays, you might
| even convince me !  But, as you know, I distrust change.

	Wow..... this is absolutely amazing. Something that has been brought on
by hetersosexuals is going to be used to prevent gays from marriage? And gays
have to prove that their marriages would better the het ones before you would
accept it? This is too much! The problems come from people who are
irresponsible, yet because of THEIR actions, we have to go out and prove that
our marriages to each other is going to help the het marriages?? bb, being
responsible is going to help het marriages. Being able to keep the committment
you made will help het marriages. Gays don't have to help het marriages because
it is up to the people involved in the marriage to make their own marriage
work. Not gays. And regardless of whether gays marry or not, you will still
have the same amount of gays in this world. A gay marriage can't help a het
one, as a het one can't help a gay marriage. The people involved are the only
ones who can help. Geezzee.... now I have heard everything!



Glen

             <<< Note 155.175 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    This is not true.  For an extreme example,

	Did anyone ever wonder why Steve always has to revert to
	extreme examples to bolster his arguments?

	Since we are discussing civil marriage contracts, any of
	your examples that do not deal with those able to enter into
	a civil contract are irrelevant.

Jim

                     <<< Note 155.179 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>- whether restricting sexual behavior or marriage
>     constitutes violating "Equal protection of the Laws". 

	"under the laws". Please if you are going to use quotes, quote.

>If you could show that
>     marriage would be better among hets if it included gays, you might
>     even convince me !  But, as you know, I distrust change.
 
	So a law that should benefit Gays by treating them equal to
	Hets, has to offer something MORE to Hets???

	No special treatment there!

>      Meanwhile, to respond to Meg in .174 - I don't get it ?

	If Kevin and Company had merely discussed the issue of broken
	homes, single parent families, lack of role models, I might
	still disagree with his conclusions, but I would not be able to
	label him a racist. Since he addresses these issue ONLY for
	Blacks and Hispanics, it's quite obvious that he is a racist.
	Though I'm sure he would deny it to his dying day.

Jim

    Whether Kevin Tebedo is a racist or not, consider the household he was
    raised in.  About a year ago, his mother, Mary Ann Tebedo, our state
    senator from Colorado Springs, made some crazed comment about blacks
    being more promiscuous than other races.
    
    -- Jim

| <<< Note 155.186 by TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!" >>>




| Not even a good try, Steve.  You tried to climb out of the "special" hole
| you've fallen into, but I'm not going to let you get away with it.  If
| same-sex marriages become legal, it will be possible for two heterosexual
| males to wed; therefore, gays are not getting anything "special".  This,
| you must bear in mind, is the same logic that you use to claim that gays
| are not discriminated against because they have the right to marry some-
| one of the opposite sex.  You can't butter both sides of the bread, Steve.

	Joan... I AM impressed! Talk about putting it into his own logic. I
can't wait to see the response.

Glen

                  <<< Note 155.123 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| of Dr. Dobson.
>
>| What has he said on this issue that makes him a zealot in your eyes?
>| What has he lied about?  I really am curious about this.
>
>	Steve, go into the CHRISTIAN_PERSPECTIVE file and look under the
>Ammentment 2 topic. You will see what he has written. 

    	In a subsequent reply you said to look at the topic with
    	A2 in it.  There is none.  But there is topic 91 with nearly
    	5000 replies about gays.  Perhaps that's the one you were
    	thinking of.
    
    	A search of the topic for the string 'Dobson' shows no gay
    	bashing on Dobson's part.  There is a string of replies
    	after reply 4000 regarding Mel White's hunger strike outside
    	Dobson's ministry.  There are claims by several people that
    	claim Dobson bashes gays.  But nothing from Dobson himself.
    	In nearly 5000 replies.
    
    	Oh, and there is reply 4198 by you, Glen, suggesting that 
    	Dobson is part of CFV.  Perhaps you still have this confusion.
    	You were corrected at that time, but the error still seems
    	to persist...

    <<< Note 155.174 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    The high representation of blacks and Hispanics
>    in our jails and detention centers is a direct result of children
>    growing up without fathers in the home and a generally less active,
>    positive family unit in those communities.  
    
    	Meg --
    
    	Do you disagree with this assessment?
    
>    These facts have led to an
>    environment where young minorities are perceived to be more dangerous
>    and may lead to unfair and even outright racist treatment.
    
    	Do you think it is better that we just leave status quo and
    	propogate the "unfair and even outright racist treatment" that
    	the quote from CFV seems to lament?
    
>    To me this is a perception that people of color lack the same "family
>    values" as those of CFV.  
    
    	Statistically, this seems to be the case.  Is it wrong to
    	point that out?
    
.189>    Whether Kevin Tebedo is a racist or not, consider the household he was
>    raised in.  About a year ago, his mother, Mary Ann Tebedo, our state
>    senator from Colorado Springs, made some crazed comment about blacks
>    being more promiscuous than other races.
    
    	Statistically, Mary Ann Tebedo's statement was shown to be 
    	true.  Even black leaders backed her up.  Her mistake, like 
    	Jesse Helms, was in being diplomatically coarse, and even 
    	worse politically impolite by drawing focus to one of the 
    	ACLU poster children.

| <<< Note 155.191 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| In a subsequent reply you said to look at the topic with A2 in it. There is 
| none. 

	My mistake. I had thought there was one. Had I been able to get into
the file, I would have seen that. But I haven't been able to get in since
yesterday morning. When I can get in I will look and see. 

| A search of the topic for the string 'Dobson' shows no gay bashing on Dobson's
| part.  

	Ahhhh..... but if you look and see the notes that had the newsclippings
where the author of his literature admitted he lied, you'd see what was going
on. Why lie if the truth is so strong? 



Glen

    <<< Note 155.181 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Actually one court has agreed. Hawaii currenly, under court order,
>	recognizes same-sex marriages.
    
    	This is not yet true.
   

   <<< Note 155.186 by TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!" >>>

>    just be chewing disk space.  HETEROSEXUALS ENJOY THE FREEDOM TO MARRY
>    WHICHEVER CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN THEY DESIRE (BEARING IN MIND THAT 
>    HETEROSEXUALS, BY DEFINITION, WOULD NOT DESIRE TO MARRY SOMEONE OF THE
>    SAME SEX), WHILE HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT ENJOY THAT SAME FREEDOM.
    
    	This is not true.  I cannot marry my mother, sister, cousin,
    	aunt, etc.  I cannot marry two consenting women at the same
    	time.  And I find it too convenient that you exclude the
    	heterosexual from marrying a same-sex partner.  We're talking
    	about legal arrangements here (though some try to divert this
    	into a discussion about love, nobody prevents another from
    	legally loving anyone...)  Why is it so inconceivable that
    	one het partner wouldn't want to marry another of the same sex
    	purely for the legal benefits that marriage affords?
    
    	But just focusing on the consentual incestuous relationships,
    	it's rather amusing to see the pro-gay faction being forced to
    	also include these under their umbrella lest they be seen as
    	hypocrites.  Society MUST be allowed to define for itself 
    	what is acceptable and what is not.  There is more to law than
    	just logic.  We can see where their logic drags us when we
    	must also begin to accept incest.

    <<< Note 155.187 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Did anyone ever wonder why Steve always has to revert to
>	extreme examples to bolster his arguments?
    
    	You mean like the 51% cannibal population eating the 
    	other 49%?
    
    	Maybe that wasn't you using that argument...

| <<< Note 155.195 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>



| We're talking about legal arrangements here (though some try to divert this
| into a discussion about love, 

	Yeah.... why bring love into marriage......

                  <<< Note 155.193 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Ahhhh..... but if you look and see the notes that had the newsclippings
>where the author of his literature admitted he lied, you'd see what was going
>on. Why lie if the truth is so strong? 

    	I see that you are untrainable.
    
    	THAT WAS NOT DOBSON.  You were corrected when you made this
    	confusion in c-p 91.4198, and I just corrected you again, and
    	yet you STILL continue to paint with the broken broad brush.
    	You have seemingly dumped all Christian leadership into your
    	same bucket of whom-to-hate, and no amount of correction will
    	ever be sufficient, I suppose...
    
    	You don't want to be defined by NAMBLA and other gay extremists.
    	You'd be more fair to afford others the same courtesy.

                  <<< Note 155.197 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| We're talking about legal arrangements here (though some try to divert this
>| into a discussion about love, 
>
>	Yeah.... why bring love into marriage......
    
    	Because that's not what gays want out of state-sanctioned marriage.
    	They already (apparently) have love.  No law can prevent/allow
    	that.  They are looking for the legal benefits of state-sanctioned
    	marriage.  Can you see any other reason?

    >>  Actually one court has agreed. Hawaii currenly, under court order,
    >>  recognizes same-sex marriages.
    >
    >        This is not yet true.
    
    The case is still pending- what a judge has ordered is that the state
    must show "a compelling interest" if it seeks to deny marriage
    licenses to anybody solely because they're gay.  The state is having
    a tough time, as there is obviously no such compelling interest.  But
    you are correct that the ruling is not yet final.  Or Hawaii would be
    having such a tourist boom, as thousands of people would JUMP at the
    chance to get a legal marriage on the books, which the constitutional
    commerce clause would then require other states to recognize.  CFV will
    no doubt have a cow.
    
    DougO

    
    .195
    
    	>This is not true.  I cannot marry my mother...
    
    You still here, Joe?  Well, you obviously missed my point to Steve
    regarding the (I would have thought) unnecessary qualifiers, but
    no matter.  You may continue to add every little, tiny qualifier you
    wish.  Make a list, if it gives you a woody.  It still boils down to
    the same argument: that heterosexuals get to marry whomever they want,
    NOTWITHSTANDING JOE & STEVE'S LIST OF QUALIFIERS, and gays do not,
    NOTWITHSTANDING THAT VERY SAME LIST OF QUALIFIERS.
    
    	>And I find it too convenient that you exclude the heterosexual from 
    	>marrying a same-sex partner.
    
    Oh, c'mon, Joe, how many would REALLY want to?  Honestly.  Are you
    afraid that there might be *rampant* abuse of the new-found privilege?
    I mean, any more abuse than there currently is from opposite-sex
    couples?
    
    	>But just focusing on the consentual incestuous relationships...
    
    Well, I haven't been following what was no doubt a gripping discussion
    in the incest topic, but I don't recall hearing a lot in the news about
    Consentual Incest Groups fighting for recognition of their rights.
    Must have been hung over that day.
    
    jc
    
                                  

          <<< Note 155.195 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	This is not true.  I cannot marry my mother, sister, cousin,
>    	aunt, etc.  I cannot marry two consenting women at the same
>    	time.

	Again we see the tactics of dicervion that are so popular with
	the side arguing against Gays being treated equally.

	The laws related to incest do have a purpose. The risks of genetic
	damage with such relationships can be severe. This concern does
	not, of course, apply to same sex marriages. But you knew that. 

>  And I find it too convenient that you exclude the
>    	heterosexual from marrying a same-sex partner.

	It wasn't excluded, it was merely commented that Hets would
	be unlikley to afford themselves of the opportunity. Should
	this law be changed Hets WOULD be able to marry persons of
	the same sex should they so choose.

>  We're talking
>    	about legal arrangements here

	And you have already admitted that there is no legal logic
	that supports the current prohibition.

>Society MUST be allowed to define for itself 
>    	what is acceptable and what is not. 

	Within the limits of the Constitution, of course. You DID mean
	to add that qualifier, didn't you?

>We can see where their logic drags us when we
>    	must also begin to accept incest.

	"Must" accept incest? Not really. There IS a logical reason to
	discourage incestuous marriages (or sexual relationships) as 
	I noted above. 

	Your strawmen are on fire Joe. Time to construct some new ones.

Jim

    /Again we see the tactics of dicervion 
    
     Not the dreaded "tactics of dicervion"!!!

          <<< Note 155.196 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	You mean like the 51% cannibal population eating the 
>    	other 49%?
    
>    	Maybe that wasn't you using that argument...

	Actually someone else suggested it first. I merely used it to
	categorize Steve's worship of majority rule.

	But review for yourself the number of extremes used by both sides.
	You could start with your mistaken claims about incest and work
	back. I think you'll find that I stay on topic far more than
	you or Steve.

Jim

            <<< Note 155.203 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "the heat is on" >>>

    
>     Not the dreaded "tactics of dicervion"!!!

	I have already explained that my highschool typing teacher
	took her own life after I completed her course. ;-)

	List of popular excuses:

	It's 6:00 AM here.
	I've only had one cup of coffee so far.
	I just bought a new PC and the keyboard feels odd.
	I was careless.

	;-)

Jim

    
    "The Tactics of Dicervion" is a well-known military theory text that
    dates back to ancient Greece.  Dicervion's influential work is usually
    found next to Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" in the personal library of
    any serious student of military history.
    

    <---ooo! intellectual humor! I like it!

    
    T'was merely a pale imitation of more able practitioners, 
    I assure you.
    
    But thanks anyway.   :^)
    

    re: .184
    
    Examples of some of the bigotry that this string in loaded with,
    please.  
    
    Thanks.
    
    
    -steve

    And here I thought I was the only early morning crazy around here.
    
    Joe,
    
    You work with Marriage Encounter the last I knew, would you say the
    ONLY benefits of a legal marriage are the legal and financial ones? 
    Gee, with attitudes about marriage like that it is no wonder fewer
    people are availing themselves of same.
    
    If you read the whole violence section, I can't believe you can't see
    what is racist in it.  Only black and Hispanic men leave their
    families?  Only black and hispanic children are raised in single parent
    households?  Single parenting is the leading cause of crime in our
    streets?  Here I thought is was a legacy of the greedhead '80's where
    peoples' net worth counted more than how they got their cash, workers
    stopped being valued by many corporations, people got rich on crooked
    real-estate deals which cost the rest of us about $500 billion the high
    paying semi-skilled workerwas displaced by a rush of corporations
    moving manufacturing out of the country, silly me.
    

    
    Okay.. here's a question..
    
    Is having an aversion to what one considers a disgusting practice,
    homophobic and/or bigotry??

	.211  

	homophobia n. 1 Aversion to gay or lesbian people or their
		        lifestyle or culture.

    
>    Is having an aversion to what one considers a disgusting practice,
>    homophobic and/or bigotry??


  Yes.  According to some folks I've heard, one with such an aversion needs
  psychological help.




 Jim

    
    "Having an aversion"?  No, I shouldn't think so.  I guess it depends
    on whether or not you believe that the behavior is something that
    occurs normally in nature, regardless of whether or not it represents
    THE norm.  
    
    But using that same aversion to try and influence or control the lives 
    of said practitioners is at least bigoted, and perhaps fascist.
    

    >    Is having an aversion to what one considers a disgusting practice,
    >    homophobic and/or bigotry??
    
     It depends on how far you carry your aversion. If your aversion leads
    you to oppose the rights of gays and lesbians to do things that don't
    affect you, then you are homophobic. If you react differently to
    someone because of who they are, then you are bigoted.

	Bigotry is intolerance, not aversion, as I understand it.

    
      {Blur, slowly fades into marriage scene, judge standing before
       Binder and his Mac...}
    
      M [in Computer monotone] : I do.
      J : Then in the power vested in me by the State of Derision, I
         pronounce you married !  You may um, er...
      B : No problem, your honor.  The user interface has to be seen
         to be believed.  If you'll allow me to demonstrate...
      J : Alas, no time - duty calls.  Next ?  Who are you and what can
         I do for you ?
      P : Jim Percival.  I'm here to get married !
      J [Taking out form] : That will be $50.  And the name of the lucky
         party is...
      P [Stares at floor, shuffles feet] : Well, you see, I haven't
        anyone...
      J : Well, see, the verb is transitive.  We're not picky here - any
        noun will do.
      P {Wrings hands, staring upward] : It's not my fault !  Am I to be
        denied the state-sanctioned condition of wedded bliss, just because
        I'm so clueless nobody...[shaking finger at J] I DEMAND EQUAL
        PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW !!!
      J : Well, sure, we're easy here.  Just tell me what to write in...
      P [Lightbulb over head] : OK, I'll marry the 14th Amendment to the
        US Constitution !
      J [Writing in] : A bit off the beaten track, but... this check is
        good isn't it ?
      P [Embracing self] : Love, cherish, obey...
    
      {Fade to Floride citrus grove}
      Voice of Meg : This sarcasm brought to you by MARRIAGE - we're not
                    just for reproduction any more...
    
      bb

    
    re: .115

    John:

    > >Glen, I would do exactly the same thing if it was homosexual, or
    > >heterosexual.  Tough luck, get another job.
    > 
    > Ahhh, but you're NOT homosexual, are you?  So you don't have to worry
    > about having your job arbitrarily pulled out from under you due to
    > your sexuality.  Comfortable position to be in.

    This statement is silly.  We ALL should worry about having a job pulled
    out from under us.  This is the nineties, wake up and smell the coffee!
    Gay, straight, bi-sexual, monochromatic, Technicolor, it doesn't effing
    matter !  When you job goes away, it goes away, regardless of the
    reason!

    > >Too many people are making mountains out of molehills. 
    > 
    > It may be a molehill to you, but to someone with a mortgage or a child,
    > suddenly losing your job, ESPECIALLY in bad economic times, is no light
    > matter.  And when hunting for that new job, it doesn't help to have the
    > field artificially narrowed.

    I never said it was easy to lose a job without having one lined up, but
    this was not the topic under discussion.

    > >> How do YOU feel about gays in the military?
    > >
    > >Depends, do they want to serve and protect their country, or make a
    > >political statement?
    > 
    > Well, who's making this an issue here, the gays who wish to serve or
    > the brass that wants them turfed out?
    
    I believe that the people who are making this an issue are the ones who
    want to have political fodder for the future.

    > >> Gays adopting the children of their S.O.?
    > >
    > >Ehhh?  I could argue it either way.
    > 
    > See?  Here again, this may be no issue to you, but it's very important
    > to same-sex couples trying to provide a stable financial and family
    > environment for their children.

    And your point is?

    re: .122

    Glen,

> | How does having been fired for being homosexual equate with a bad mark?
> 
> 	Very easy. Who is to say that is what they tell the next company? They
> could say anything they wanted.

    Hate to bust your bubble, but they can say anything they want to about
    you our your performance anyway.

> | In your own example you can still use your boss for a reference.  In fact
> | you'd be foolish not to.  Even if you can not use you immediate boss, you'd
> | be hard pressed to have ticked off everyone you worked for in those ten years.
> 
>     Minor nit.... but because someone is gay, it ain't their fault that
> their boss gets ticked off about it. 

    Are you trying to tell me that everyone you've worked for for those ten
    years was ticked at you because you're gay?  I find that difficult to
    believe.  The ONLY possible way that this could happen is if you worked
    for the same person for ten years.  If this is the case, that shows
    poor career planning on your part, but that's another matter.  What
    you do then is list several coworkers. 

    > You are then left with 2 options. Explain why you won't list a boss, or 
    > lie that this coworker is a boss. 

    Hardly, you don't have to explain anything to anyone.  I would list
    coworkers, or bosses to suit my situation.  I doubt that you will run
    into very many people who will question why you didn't list a boss. 
    Also, NEVER LIE !  It's too easy to be caught.

    > On the application you have two choices. You can say you left to find 
    > greener pastures, which then you would have to explain why you left 
    > without a job in place, along with the fact that you'd be lying. OR, you 
    > list why you were fired, and hope that the new company isn't like the old 
    > one, and that if the new company calls the old one, the stories match. So 
    > your options are to tell the truth, and quite possibly not end up with 
    > the job, or lie. 

    god Glen, you suffer from tunnel vision.  If you are asked why you left
    your previous job, a) don't fill in that spot on the app. b) tell them
    you felt that you were not going anywhere in that position. (this is
    true) c) or some other gobbledygook that the HR people will eat up.

    > Both option can be due to ones race, nationality, sexual 
    > orientation, gender, ANYTHING, under your version, Dan. It just ain't 
    > going to work.

    It will not work if you convince your self it will not.  This is your
    mistake.  If you want to get another job you must remember that there
    are more jobs out there, that you can do, than there are people to fill
    them.

    > | If you did, you were not fired for being homosexual....
    > 
    > Hello.... we were talking about being fired for being gay. But I also
    > included under your system it could be for nationality, etc. Do you feel 
    > the same way for that as well?

    Please read more carefully, I said if you had succeeded in ticking off
    everyone that you had worked for in those ten years, you were not being
    fired for being gay.  I was implying that after ticking off everyone
    for ten years they were just plain sick of you being around.  If you
    get fired, you get fired.  It doesn't really matter the cause (provided
    that it was not your being a criminal).  All that I said applies
    whether it's race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

> | 'Fraid you're wrong bucko. I've thought it through many times. I just REFUSE 
> | to be a victim.  
> 
>     You may refuse to admit you were victimized, but it does not change the
>     fact that if you were fired because of your nationality (which your plan 
>     would allow this to happen), you were just that, victimized. You can't 
>     deny that.

    I cannot prevent people from doing what they are going to do, but I am
    in COMPLETE CONTROL of how I let it affect me.  If I wallow in
    self-pity, this is my choice.  If I ignore their stupidity, and turn
    this into a victory for me, this is also my choice.  Being a victim is
    a choice.  I choose not to be a victim.  You appear to take the role of
    victim with great glee and zest.

> | Some people like being a victim, from many of your comments, you seem to enjoy
> | being a persecuted individual. If this is true, have at it, but don't try to 
> | drag me into your morass of self-pity.
> 
> 	Wow.... where the heck did this come from???? 

    Read your own notes, you seem to enjoy being persecuted.  If this is
    not true, it is still how it appears to this observer.

    Dan

   .217  that was pretty funny.

    re: .186
    
>    Oh, Steve, come on.  You know what point I was making.  
    
>    Yes, I know your point.  You did seem to miss mine, though.
    
>    HETEROSEXUALS ENJOY THE FREEDOM TO MARRY
>    WHICHEVER CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN THEY DESIRE 
                          ^^^^^
    You list a limitation here.  Who defines what an adult is?  Who
    regulates this?  The state regulates that both parties be of a minimum
    age, which infringes upon those who really feel that there is nothing
    wrong with marrying those beneath this age (assuming both parties are
    in agreement on marriage).  
    
    You see, it isn't about who you WANT to marry at all.  These criteria
    have always been limited to some degree.  This is a strawman legal
    argument.

>    I am singularly unimpressed by historical arguments.  
    
    So, SCOTUS is irrelevent in your opinion on application of law?  You
    are entitled to your opinion, but let's just say that SCOTUS wins out
    over emotional arguments in my book.
    
>    I do not live in
>    in 1885, Steve.  I know YOU must have been around 140 years old by then,
>    but LOTS of things that were okay with society back then have rightfully
>    been cast aside, and I see the same situation here.

    Ah, but just because a standard was set far back in history, is not
    reason enough, in itself, to toss it out.  Not all historical rulings
    were wrong, nor are all the historical standards bad.  This is a
    specious argument, at best.  If you disagree with this ruling, then I
    suggest you do your homework and find legal reasoning why it is wrong.

>    If same-sex marriages become legal, it will be possible for two heterosexual
>    males to wed; therefore, gays are not getting anything "special". 
    
    Sure they are.  They are getting special exclusion to the current
    marriage prerequisites (one man and one woman).  They are changing the
    the institution to fit their lifestyle.  If this isn't special
    privilege, I don't know what is.

>    More `slippery-slope' stuff, Steve?  Don't you believe that the 1st
>    prevents the gov't from "forcing" such marriages upon churches that
>    don't believe in them?  
    
    In theory, yes.  In theory, the government cannot make laws restricting
    the right to keep and bear arms, either.
    
>    Remember, there are plenty of churches that
>    are already willing to perform these ceremonies.  
    
    Plenty?  I think the correct term would be "very few", when you
    consider how many churches refuse to perform such ceremonies.  A very
    insignificant % perform such ceremonies.
        
>    Well, see, now you're a hair's breadth away from justifying active
>    discrimination (jobs, tenancy, gay bashing, etc.) solely on the basis
>    of sexuality.  Don't sugar-coat your agenda, Steve.

    Obviously, you missed the point entirely.  
    
>    Go back to Jim P.'s question, then.  How do you justify constitutional
>    protection of religious "behavior" or "lifestyle"?

    I'll answer with a few quotes from those who had a hand in founding
    this nation.  Let's hear why they insured religion be protected at all
    costs.  You see, *I* don't have to justify it, I did not ratify the BoR. 
    I do agree with their reasoning.
    
    We'll start with John Adams....
    
    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with
    human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition,
    revenge, or gallantry, would break teh stongest cords of our
    Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made
    only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the
    government of any other."
    
    [notice that in his view, the Constitution is dependent upon religion
    to bridle human passions]
    
    "Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of
    republicanism and all free government, but of social and felicity under
    all governments and in all the combinations of human society."
    
    
    John Witherspoon...
    
    "It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to
    find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible
    soldier.  God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may
    be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy one, may in the
    issue tend to the support and establishment of both."
    
    "What follows from this?  That he is the best friend to American
    liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled
    religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down
    profanity and immorality of every kind.  Whoever is an ovowed enemy of
    God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country."
    
    
    These are just a few quotes on this subject.  There's plenty more where
    they came from, but I'm sure you get the gist of their arguments on
    this matter.
    
    Can you provide similar support for sex life, or even for society
    having to accept a certain lifestyle into their institutions?
    Or the public having no right to set community standards in their
    institutions, that they have no right to discriminate against sexual
    deviancy being added into their definition of marriage and family?
    
    No, I think not.
    
>    How does allowing two men who deeply love
>    each other the freedom to cement that bond diminish the meaning of
>    `marriage'?
    
    Tell you what, call it something else but marriage, and I won't argue
    the point.  But don't call it marriage.  I still disagree with the
    premise, but at least the institution of marriage is preserved for
    those who still value it.
    
>    Back to this one, again.  No-one is considering forcing you to marry
>    another man, Steve.  
    
    Which is completely beside the point.  Forcing values is a different
    issue.  By forcing change in marriage laws, you ARE forcing values on
    society- values that most of society clearly wants no part of.
    
>    But society DOES force gay men to either marry
>    against their nature or do without (and by that, I mean doing without
>    the benefits of a legal marriage).

    Society forces nothing.  They DO NOT ALLOW gay marriages, as they do
    not recognize this as a lifestyle of equal value to normal marriage. 
    I hope we don't need to go into how normal marriages benefit society in
    ways that gay marriages can not.
     
    
    -steve

    
    re: .212
    
    What dictionary (re: homophobia)???
    
    
    
    The American Heritage Dictionary
    
    aversion n. 2. Intense dislike. 2. A feeling of extreme repugnance.

    .218

    >This statement is silly.  We ALL should worry about having a job pulled
    >out from under us.  This is the nineties, wake up and smell the coffee!

    Dan, losing your job due to corporate downsizing (I have) and losing
    your job due to discrimination are two different things, and you know
    this.  Why be slippery?

    >I never said it was easy to lose a job without having one lined up, but
    >this was not the topic under discussion.

    Uhhh, I believe one of the threads here involved the issue of legislation
    to  prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so it IS
    a valid part of the discussion.  Are you paying attention?

    >I believe that the people who are making this an issue are the ones who
    >want to have political fodder for the future.

    `Interesting' interpretation (re: gay/mil).

    >And your point is?

    My point, re: same-sex marriages, and anti-gay discrimination, is that
    it's easy for you to dismiss them as non-issues, because they don't
    affect you.  It's also very easy to come out on the losing end of that
    kind of thinking, as many gun-owners around the country are finding.

    >[Glen,] Read your own notes, you seem to enjoy being persecuted.  If 
    >this is not true, it is still how it appears to this observer.

    I don't doubt you'd LIKE to believe that, because it offers you a 
    convenient way to dismiss the valid concerns of gays and lesbians.

    jc

<<< Note 155.222 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>
>>    re: .212
>>    What dictionary (re: homophobia)???

	 American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition,
	 copyright 1993.  Okay???

    re: .187    
    
>	Did anyone ever wonder why Steve always has to revert to
>	extreme examples to bolster his arguments?

    "Always has to revert to extreme examples" ??
    
    Jim, this is unbecoming of you.  
    
>	Since we are discussing civil marriage contracts, any of
>	your examples that do not deal with those able to enter into
>	a civil contract are irrelevant.

    Actually, we are discussing more than just a civil contract.  You
    brought up the 14th Amendment to bolster your argument on why gays
    should be allowed to marry.  You put forth the argument that the state
    cannot limit the privileges of US citizens.  By limiting this "civil
    contract", you in effect limit privilege.  You make my point for me,
    above.
    
    The civil contract of marriage has prerequisites set forth by the
    state.  There is equal access to all WHO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.  It is
    not going against the 14th to set such requirments (as you so imply
    above).  Therefore, it is not going against the 14th to not allow two
    men or two women to marry each other (though they can marry one of the
    opposite sex).
    
    You are arguing emotion.  You are arguing that because a man wants to
    marry a man, he should be allowed to.  You are arguing personal desire,
    rather than equal application, IMO.
    
    
    -steve

    
    re: .224
    
    1993???
    
    Boy!! They got that into circulation mighty quick!!!
    
    I guess I qualify then...
    

    re: .217
    
    Not bad for sarcastic humor.  8^)

    .221

    >You list a limitation here...

    And we're spinning our wheels, here.
    
    >So, SCOTUS is irrelevent in your opinion on application of law?  You
    >are entitled to your opinion, but let's just say that SCOTUS wins out
    >over emotional arguments in my book.
    
    Really?  So if SCOTUS upholds anti-2nd laws, that wins out, for you?
    Didn't you used to rail about how unfair it was to tax you and spend
    that money on welfare bums?  SCOTUS hasn't deemed it necessary to put
    a stop to that practice, yet you still believe it's wrong.

    >Ah, but just because a standard was set far back in history, is not
    >reason enough, in itself, to toss it out.

    And, conversely, just because a standard was set far back in history,
    is not reason enough, in itself, to preserve that standard, either.

    >If you disagree with this ruling, then I
    >suggest you do your homework and find legal reasoning why it is wrong.

    Steve, I don't have to prove something is *legally* wrong to believe
    that it *is* wrong.  You, as a Christian, should know that.  So far,
    you haven't produced any good legal reasons why same-sex marriages
    *should* be prohibited.

    >Sure they are.  They are getting special exclusion to the current
    >marriage prerequisites (one man and one woman).

    No, Steve, the current institution is exclusive to heterosexuals, and
    if this isn't special privilege, I don't know what is.  The proposed
    change wrests control of that special privilege from heterosexuals and
    grants it to gays.

    Again, we're spinning our wheels here.  You say to-MAY-to, I say
    to-MAH-to.

    >A very insignificant % perform such ceremonies.

    Well, I know 3 such churches within walking distance of my home,
    but that matters little, since I'm not arguing *for* church sanction.
        
    >Obviously, you missed the point entirely.  
    
    No, Steve, reread your statement (re: discrimination) as written.  It's 
    a scary statement.  Maybe you want to reword it.

    >You see, *I* don't have to justify it, I did not ratify the BoR. 

    He said, from the comfy chair...
    
    As far as your quotes are concerned, you fail to realize that they are
    ultimately simply the opinions of the people involved.  You can post
    quotes from John Covert or Joe Oppelt if you want, for all the weight
    they carry with me.

    That the Founding Fathers did not protect sexuality does not change the
    fact that they *did* protect religion, which is a *choice*, a lifestyle,
    and a behaviour, all rolled into one.  Therefore you are hypocritical
    to insist that the gov't has no place protecting (what you claim to be)
    lifestyle choices.
    
    >Tell you what, call it something else but marriage, and I won't argue
    >the point.  But don't call it marriage.

    Hey, I'd call it "barley ice-cream" if it carried the same legal
    weight.
    
    >Which is completely beside the point.  Forcing values is a different
    >issue.  By forcing change in marriage laws, you ARE forcing values on
    >society- values that most of society clearly wants no part of.

    Steve, I sincerely believe that "most of society" doesn't give a 
    rodent's posterior whether or not gays get to marry.  The issue, as
    with many issues, continues to be steered by vocal minorities on both
    sides of the debate.  The statement "most of society clearly wants"
    is not supported by anything in *this* string (even if I *did* care
    what "most of society clearly wants").
    
    >Society forces nothing.  They DO NOT ALLOW gay marriages, as they do
    >not recognize this as a lifestyle of equal value to normal marriage. 

    Do you believe that prohibition is *not* a form of force?

    >I hope we don't need to go into how normal marriages benefit society in
    >ways that gay marriages can not.
     
    I brought this up earlier, so feel free.

    jc

             <<< Note 155.221 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    You see, it isn't about who you WANT to marry at all.  These criteria
>    have always been limited to some degree.  This is a strawman legal
>    argument.

	When you look at all of the restrictions that you are using
	to bolster your argument (age, close blood relationship) I
	don't see how they apply to the issue of allowing Gays to
	marry. If you want to add the restriction that Gays would have
	to follow the age restrictions, or the laws on marrying relatives,
	no problem. Then you are left with justifying not allowing them
	to marry the legally of age, non-relative of their choice.
	The very SAME privilege that Hets are accorded every day.

>    Sure they are.  They are getting special exclusion to the current
>    marriage prerequisites (one man and one woman).  They are changing the
>    the institution to fit their lifestyle.  If this isn't special
>    privilege, I don't know what is.

	So equality for people that you disapprove of constitutes "special
	privelege? I already knew that this was Kevin's definition, but 	
	I really didn't know that it was yours too.

Jim

             <<< Note 155.225 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    "Always has to revert to extreme examples" ??
    
>    Jim, this is unbecoming of you.  
 
	You may think so, but I notice that your reply contains no denial.

   
>    Actually, we are discussing more than just a civil contract.  You
>    brought up the 14th Amendment to bolster your argument on why gays
>    should be allowed to marry.  You put forth the argument that the state
>    cannot limit the privileges of US citizens.  By limiting this "civil
>    contract", you in effect limit privilege.  You make my point for me,
>    above.
 
	A course in reading comprehension may be in order. You will find
	that I did NOT say that the states cannot limit priveleges. The
	states limit all sorts of priveleges without violated the provisions
	of the 14th.

>    The civil contract of marriage has prerequisites set forth by the
>    state.  There is equal access to all WHO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.  It is
>    not going against the 14th to set such requirments (as you so imply
>    above).  Therefore, it is not going against the 14th to not allow two
>    men or two women to marry each other (though they can marry one of the
>    opposite sex).
 
	When those prerequisites discriminate against a particular segment
	of the population, then you DO have a conflict with the 14th.

	As noted before, your argument is no different that those used
	to defend the prohibitions against inter-racial marriage. I can
	only conclude that you believe that the Constitutional challenge
	to those laws was without merit.

>    You are arguing emotion.  

	No emotion. Pure applied logic. Either the state can tell adults
	who they can or cannot marry, or they can't. If the laws prohibiting
	inter-racial marriages were wrong (and I doubt that you'll find 
	too many people that will defend them), then the laws prohibiting
	same sex marriages are wrong. You can't pick and choose between	
	"well, this group is OK (now), but this group is bad".

Jim

    I must admit I enjoyed .217, too- though the Anita Bryant imagery was
    rather further from it's mark than the other two.
    
    DougO

    .217
    
    agagagagagagagag <wheeze>!

 I always thought that a phobia was a fear of something.

re .binder

Based on Dick's definition of "aversion", one who opposes the "gay agenda"
but has no aversion to gay individuals is _not_ homophobic.

re .mark

Legalization of homosexual "marriage" just might affect you, personally,
Mark.  It might affect what you pay in taxes, insurance, etc.  And it
might affect you in ways you don't even notice.

/john

    I, for one, wouldn't mind gay people being subjected to the marriage
    tax. I also wouldn't mind allowing gay people being covered under
    "family" insurance plans; I think anything we do that reduces the
    number of uninsured people, the better off we'll be financially.

    >   Indeed it might.  Because it's likely that significantly fewer
    >   homosexual families will have dependent children, the cost of
    >   family-plan insurance could decrease.
    
    on the other hand, how many marriages would occur for the sole
    purpose of obtaining (extremely expensive) hiv-related illness
    coverage?
    
    -b

    If we keep on with the definitions, we will end up discussing incest in
    the South Pacific.

| <<< Note 155.199 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| >	Yeah.... why bring love into marriage......

| Because that's not what gays want out of state-sanctioned marriage.

	Whoa Joe.... that's not what heterosexuals want out of a
state-sanctioned marriage either. So lets deal with reality.



Glen

| <<< Note 155.218 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| This statement is silly.  We ALL should worry about having a job pulled
| out from under us.  This is the nineties, wake up and smell the coffee!
| Gay, straight, bi-sexual, monochromatic, Technicolor, it doesn't effing
| matter !  When you job goes away, it goes away, regardless of the reason!

	Dan, we've come to take your house away. WE don't have to give a
reason, cuz it doesn't matter. It is just happening. 

	Kiss your job good-bye. Don't worry about the reason, cuz it doesn't
matter. 

	We're taking your entire family away from you. It doesn't matter about
the reason. 

	Your statement is what is silly.

| Hate to bust your bubble, but they can say anything they want to about
| you our your performance anyway.

	If they like you, they will give you a good rating if your job
performance was good. If they don't like you because of your nationality,
orientation, etc, they will more than likely give you a bad rating. Again, no
bubble is being burst here Dan, except your own.

| > | In your own example you can still use your boss for a reference.  In fact
| > | you'd be foolish not to.  Even if you can not use you immediate boss, you'd
| > | be hard pressed to have ticked off everyone you worked for in those ten years.
| >
| >     Minor nit.... but because someone is gay, it ain't their fault that
| > their boss gets ticked off about it.

| Are you trying to tell me that everyone you've worked for for those ten
| years was ticked at you because you're gay?  

	No, I was making a point on how a boss can dislike you for being gay,
but have it be no fault of your own.

| Hardly, you don't have to explain anything to anyone.  I would list
| coworkers, or bosses to suit my situation.  I doubt that you will run
| into very many people who will question why you didn't list a boss.

	Guess I must be an exception.... cuz I'm always asked if the person is
a boss or not, and I have always been asked if they can contact my
former/present company.

	Will have to address the rest later..... got to get back to class

    
    .235

>Legalization of homosexual "marriage" just might affect you, personally,
>Mark.  It might affect what you pay in taxes, insurance, etc.  And it
>might affect you in ways you don't even notice.

    But...but...but I thought that gays represented only an "insignificant"
    minority, something along the lines of 1-2% of the population.  If that
    is the case, how big would you expect the financial impact to be?
    

    And how much is that same uninsured person costing you and me when they
    can no longer pay their hospital bills?  I can already tell you we
    pay through the nose through taxes, insurance premiums, and higher
    hospital costs.
    
    But we can move that to the universal medical coverage string.
    
    Actually IF the propaganda I have read in mailings by CFV is true
    most gay male couples would pay sigificantly in the marriage penalty,
    just as straight, married couples do when each is earning over 60K.
    It could actually reduce my tax burden, or better help to lower the
    deficit.  
    
    meg
    meg

    <<< Note 155.202 by BSS::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA, USPSA/IPSC, NROI-RO" >>>

>	Again we see the tactics of dicervion that are so popular with
>	the side arguing against Gays being treated equally.
    
    	Combat perceived diversion with omission.  I noticed that you
    	ignored polygamy.  You argument for gay marriages must also
    	include polygamy (as it must include incest.)

>	The laws related to incest do have a purpose. The risks of genetic
>	damage with such relationships can be severe. This concern does
>	not, of course, apply to same sex marriages. But you knew that. 
    
    	Not with proper birth control.
    
    	Besides, each restriction has its reason.  Trying to somehow
    	apply the reason for one restriction to another is meaningless.
    
>	And you have already admitted that there is no legal logic
>	that supports the current prohibition.
    
    	Only in the absence of human nature, and in the absence of
    	societal standards.  There is more to "the law" that just
    	the pure logic you demand.  You're destined to continued
    	frustration as you've shown here if you are unable to see
    	that point.

>	Within the limits of the Constitution, of course. You DID mean
>	to add that qualifier, didn't you?
    
    	These standards were in place at the time the Constitution was
    	written.  If the founding fathers had a problem with such
    	standards, if they thought such were unconstitutional, one
    	would expect that they would have said something about them.
    	Not only are they not prohibited (or even addressed) in the
    	constitution, but you can't even find private letters from
    	someone like a Thomas Jefferson (a la his "wall of separation" 
    	letter) that speak out against such standards.
    		
>	"Must" accept incest? Not really. There IS a logical reason to
>	discourage incestuous marriages (or sexual relationships) as 
>	I noted above. 
    
    	And there are logical reasons that render your reasons moot.
    	In addition there are no logical reasons for the prohibition
    	of polygamy.

>	Your strawmen are on fire Joe. Time to construct some new ones.
    
    	I need more than your mere assertion to convince me of that.
    
    	Bottom line is that it is fully reasonable to allow society 
    	to set its standards, and we have seen quite a few that have
    	been in place (even from the days when the Constitution was
    	written, so we can conclude at least a tacit approval of them
    	by the founding fathers).  Those that are in place are applied
    	equally to all citizens.  
    
    	What is being called for here by you and others is a change in 
    	standards, not a change in the application of them.  You are
    	a part of society.  IF you want the standards changed, speak
    	up and effect change in society.  Trying to belittle those who
    	disagree with you isn't very fruitful in my estimation.

    re: .238
    
    >    on the other hand, how many marriages would occur for the sole
    >    purpose of obtaining (extremely expensive) hiv-related illness
    >    coverage?
    
    
    Can't happen - or at least not under any insurance I've been covered
    under.
    There's a thing call "pre-exisiting conditons" - if you come in with a
    known diagnosed condition, it's not covered under the insurance.
    Applies quite equally to everyone. No insurance company wants anything
    to do with my knee. :)

But the insurance that Digital provides to its employees does cover pre-existing
conditions.

    
    re: .245
    
    Yer knee ain't a politically kerrect condition...
    

    re: .246
    
    I kneel (ouch!) corrected.
    Gotta get me on that there health plan.

    re: .228
    
    re: government protection of religion (aka- lifestyle choices)
    
    Religion, as the quotes I provided for your benefit said, are
    *necessary* to this nation, and it's Constitution.  These are not
    isolated comments or opinions from a limited number of our FF, it was a
    near-universal belief by the VERY PEOPLE WHO FOUNDED THIS NATION AND
    WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.  If you like, I can supply quotes from many
    other founding fathers.  Their opinion as authors of our nation should 
    be worth more than the offhanded "opinion" label you give their
    comments.  They knew what they were talking about (and with no offence
    to Joe intended, neither my opinion nor Joe's carries with it the
    authoritative weight of these men).
    
    The argument you are dodgeing is that there is a fundamental VALUE in
    religion- a value not just to the individual, but to the society as a
    whole.  In order for your homosexual equality argument to be on the
    same level with the First Amendment and the authoritative beliefs of
    those who founded this nation, you have to prove that homosexuality is
    of equal value (or even of A value) to society.
    
    The FF certainly saw the value and benefit to society to protect
    religion as a lifestyle choice, therefore they made sure that the
    government could not regulate it in any way.  The same cannot be said
    for sexual deviancy, and it is ridiculous to argue along this line,
    trying to say that these two things are fundamentally equal.
    
    
    -steve

    .249
    
    >The argument you are dodgeing is that there is a fundamental VALUE in
    >religion- a value not just to the individual, but to the society as a
    >whole.  

    No, Steve, the point you are dodging is this:  You claim that lifestyle 
    choices should NOT be protected by law, but then you go on to say that,
    well...since religion is of greater value than xxxxxxxx, then maybe
    religion SHOULD be protected by law.  Which do you prefer: protection,
    or no protection?

    >You have to prove that homosexuality is of equal value (or even of 
    >A value) to society.
    
    What a double-edged sword you wield.  Be careful, don't hurt yourself. 

    >The FF certainly saw the value and benefit to society to protect
    >religion as a lifestyle choice, therefore they made sure that the
    >government could not regulate it in any way.  The same cannot be said
    >for sexual deviancy...

    Ahhhh, so you're saying that "freedom OF religion" does not include
    "freedom FROM religion".

    Forgive this godless heathen if he chooses to disagree.

    jc
         

     re: .230
 
>	When those prerequisites discriminate against a particular segment
>	of the population, then you DO have a conflict with the 14th.

    Herein lies the problem, Jim.  Define "segment".  There is no
    concrete way of identifying a gay person, unless they announce it. 
    Race and color are identifiable, concrete qualifiers.  Odd sexual
    preferences is simply not on the same level as race, nor do I see it as 
    applicable to use it to identify a class of people in legislation.
    
    Behavioral tendencies does not a minority make, IMO.  But this is
    exactly what you propose be the basis for changing marriage laws.
    
>	As noted before, your argument is no different that those used
>	to defend the prohibitions against inter-racial marriage. I can
>	only conclude that you believe that the Constitutional challenge
>	to those laws was without merit.

    There is a difference.  One was racial bigotry.  What you see as being
    bigotry is not based on the person, but is a bigotry towards sexual
    preference.  Not allowing a black man to marry a white woman because he
    is black, is a far cry from changing the definition of marriage to
    include what is deemed as sexual deviancy.  If you can prove that
    sexual orientation is equivalent to race in this respect, then you may
    have a point.  Of course, sexual preference is certainly not on the
    same level of identification as a behavioral anomaly.
    
    
    -steve

    
    .251
    
    >If you can prove that
    >sexual orientation is equivalent to race in this respect, then you may
    >have a point.
    
    Therein lies the rub, eh?  A growing body of scientific evidence
    suggests that it IS equivalent to race.  And yet, how to "prove"
    that to the kind of people who believe the world is 6,000 years
    old?
    

    <<< Note 155.210 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    You work with Marriage Encounter the last I knew, would you say the
>    ONLY benefits of a legal marriage are the legal and financial ones? 
    
    	*LEGAL* marriage?  You bet.  Besides, Marriage Encounter does not 
    	concern itself with the legality of marriage, but rather the
    	spirituality, love, and inter-relationship of marriage.  None
    	of those are a function of legality.  All of those are currently
    	available to same-sex partners, incestuous partners, and in some
    	ways to multiple partners, though none of those examples will
    	share the same specific spirituality as those couples on a
    	Marriage Encounter weekend...  But certainly spirituality
    	is not legally controlled (same with love, and relationship, 
    	etc.)
    
    	Do you see any marriage benefits other than financial and 
    	legal that LEGAL marriage affords?
    
>    Gee, with attitudes about marriage like that it is no wonder fewer
>    people are availing themselves of same.
    
    	From a purely legal standpoint (and that is all I've been
    	addressing) you are absolutely correct.  Legal marriage is
    	only as binding as the expertise of your spouses lawyer,
    	sad to say.
    
>    If you read the whole violence section, I can't believe you can't see
>    what is racist in it.  Only black and Hispanic men leave their
>    families?  Only black and hispanic children are raised in single parent
>    households?  
    
    	Well, I would be upset and see it as racist of the statement
    	also said ONLY.  Seeing as you are the one saying it, but
    	expecting me to assume the same thing, I can see why you are
    	in disbelief.
    
>    Single parenting is the leading cause of crime in our
>    streets?  Here I thought is was a legacy of the greedhead '80's where
>    peoples' net worth counted more than how they got their cash, workers
>    stopped being valued by many corporations, people got rich on crooked
>    real-estate deals which cost the rest of us about $500 billion the high
>    paying semi-skilled workerwas displaced by a rush of corporations
>    moving manufacturing out of the country, silly me.
    
    	You are being pretty silly, I agree.

                  <<< Note 155.240 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Whoa Joe.... that's not what heterosexuals want out of a
>state-sanctioned marriage either. So lets deal with reality.

    	I agree with you.  
    
    	So tell me, what do gays want out of state-sanctioned marriage?
    
    	And let's bypass the "same as het marriage" answer, for
    	I'll simply ask, "What specifically is that?"  We can save
    	one iteration of back-and-forth that way...

        steve,

    you asked me earlier to give an example of what i consider
    bigotry in this thread... well, stealing the pun from
    elsewhere, this note is a veritable leech field of them.

    to wit:

    > Odd sexual preferences

    the entire basis for your argument is your own view of
    abnormalcy. granted, your own view is based on the good
    book. and granted, you may be right in that a majority
    of people feel the way you do. but that still doesn't
    make you right.

    you keep invoking phrases like "behavioral tendencies"
    to describe gays... while absolutely nothing proves
    that it is a behavioral tendency to be homosexual.
    obviously, it makes you feel better believing it is,
    because it supports your point, not because it has
    any relation to the truth. if you want to talk about
    behavioral tendencies, why not consider your own
    behavioral tendency of interfering in other people's
    sex lives, which is what this really boils down to.

    you love to invoke the image of the founding fathers;
    consider this: before they were founding fathers, they
    were revolutionaries. by and large, they were not well
    regarded by most americans. they were trouble makers,
    rabble-rousers. god save the king!

    in a nutshell, get off it. not just you, but all those
    who think homosexuality is something you need to fight
    against. if the best you can manage to do is ignore
    it, that's still infinitely better than listening to
    you prattle on about it.

    -b

    re: .223

    John,

    > >This statement is silly.  We ALL should worry about having a job pulled
    > >out from under us.  This is the nineties, wake up and smell the coffee!
    > 
    > Dan, losing your job due to corporate downsizing (I have) and losing
    > your job due to discrimination are two different things, and you know
    > this.  Why be slippery?

    I am not being slippery, they are the same in that you still need to
    find another source of income, and that my friend is the key.

    > >I never said it was easy to lose a job without having one lined up, but
    > >this was not the topic under discussion.
    > 
    > Uhhh, I believe one of the threads here involved the issue of legislation
    > to  prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so it IS
    > a valid part of the discussion.  Are you paying attention?

    I am paying attention, and you <still> need reading comprehension. 
    Just because life is rough, we DO NOT NEED MORE LEGISLATION !

    > >And your point is?
    > 
    > My point, re: same-sex marriages, and anti-gay discrimination, is that
    > it's easy for you to dismiss them as non-issues, because they don't
    > affect you.  It's also very easy to come out on the losing end of that
    > kind of thinking, as many gun-owners around the country are finding.

    That is not what I said, I said that I could argue the topic in either
    favor.  Again, reading comprehension is in order.

    > >[Glen,] Read your own notes, you seem to enjoy being persecuted.  If 
    > >this is not true, it is still how it appears to this observer.
    > 
    > I don't doubt you'd LIKE to believe that, because it offers you a 
    > convenient way to dismiss the valid concerns of gays and lesbians.

    I do in fact believe that, not because it's convenient, but because the
    notes lead me to that conclusion.  These concerns may be valid, they
    may not be, that does not change what I have said.  What I am trying to
    get through to you is that whining to the government for more
    legislation will accomplish exactly zip-ta-de-do-da.

    re: .241

    Glen,

| This statement is silly.  We ALL should worry about having a job pulled
| out from under us.  This is the nineties, wake up and smell the coffee!
| Gay, straight, bi-sexual, monochromatic, Technicolor, it doesn't effing
| matter !  When you job goes away, it goes away, regardless of the reason!

    > Dan, we've come to take your house away. WE don't have to give a
    > reason, cuz it doesn't matter. It is just happening. 

    There is something called equity, so the analogy doesn't work, try
    again.

    > Kiss your job good-bye. Don't worry about the reason, cuz it doesn't
    > matter. 

    Correct, it does not matter why.

    > We're taking your entire family away from you. It doesn't matter about
    > the reason. 

    Glen, what are you trying to show with this statement?

    > Your statement is what is silly.

    Show me where I'm wrong.  You haven't done it yet.

> | Hate to bust your bubble, but they can say anything they want to about
> | you our your performance anyway.
> 
> If they like you, they will give you a good rating if your job
> performance was good. If they don't like you because of your nationality,
> orientation, etc, they will more than likely give you a bad rating. Again, no
> bubble is being burst here Dan, except your own.

    Glen, please read what I wrote before you respond, they can say
    anything they want to about you.  No legislation will change that.  YOU
    CAN NOT LEGISLATE PEOPLE'S OPINIONS!  There is no law that will protect
    you from this.  You need to stop being such a victim, and get on with
    life.

> | Hardly, you don't have to explain anything to anyone.  I would list
> | coworkers, or bosses to suit my situation.  I doubt that you will run
> | into very many people who will question why you didn't list a boss.
> 
> Guess I must be an exception.... cuz I'm always asked if the person is
> a boss or not, and I have always been asked if they can contact my
> former/present company.

    In response to present employer the answer is ALWAYS no.  No sense
    creating problems in your current working situation.  I've never had
    anyone complain about that.  Also, you would be foolish to chose a
    manager or co-worker who would give you a bad review.  One point I
    attempted to make was that in you 10 years at said mythical company you
    must have worked for someone who will not be ticked at you just because
    of your sexual orientation.  This is the "manager" that you use as a
    reference.

    Dan

    >    Just because life is rough, we DO NOT NEED MORE LEGISLATION !
    
    a.k.a.
    Life sucks. Get a helmet.

    re: .250
    
    My argument is that not all lifestyle choices should be
    protected, not that NO lifestyle choices should be protected.  If 
    this wasn't made clear enough previously, then I appologise for 
    the confusion.  It is a distinctive difference, and is pertinent to my
    reply in .249.
    
    The arguments to protect religion are many, and were deemed so important to
    society that it was protected in the FIRST Amendment.  
    
    I posted one SCOTUS ruling that backed up the current marriage
    definition, but I dug up another one.  In Davis v. Beason (1889), there 
    was an attempt to use the First Amendment as a wedge to allow polygamy
    (due to religious beliefs of the defendant). This idea was turned down
    flat by the SCOTUS, as well.  
    
    The marriage institution, being an essential part of community and society
    itself, was upheld as originally defined by law (one man and one
    woman) by both SCOTUS rulings. 
    
    FWIW, both rulings were well after the 14th Amendment was added to
    the Constitution.  I'm sure the judges were well aware of this
    Amendment, as were the defense councils.
    
    
    -steve                         

    .256

    >I am not being slippery, they are the same in that you still need to
    >find another source of income, and that my friend is the key.

    No, Dan.  The "key" is that one is justifiable and the other is not.
    You decide which is which.

    >Just because life is rough, we DO NOT NEED MORE LEGISLATION !

    In other words:  I've got mine; who cares about you?

    >That is not what I said, I said that I could argue the topic in either
    >favor.  Again, reading comprehension is in order.

    Dan, quit grabbing at this "reading comprehension" straw.  The very
    fact that you can argue the issue from either side means that you are
    gutless, or that you are indecisive, or that you don't care enough to
    take a side.  The `uncaring' option was the most generous I could
    offer you; what's the REAL reason?  If there *is* no reason, then 
    you're not contributing to the discussion.

    >I do in fact believe that, not because it's convenient, but because the
    >notes lead me to that conclusion. 

    Pretty convenient conclusion.  Doesn't require any thought at all.

    >These concerns may be valid, they may not be...

    Maybe you should come back when you have a firmer opinion, then.

    >What I am trying to get through to you is that whining to the government
    >for more legislation will accomplish exactly zip-ta-de-do-da.

    How do you propose gays achieve their goal of same-sex marriages, then?

    jc

    re: .252
    
    Nonsense.

    
    .260:
    
    I rest my case.
    

    .260
    
    > Nonsense.
    
    Convincing argument, that.  Solid evidence, compellingly presented.

    jc,
    
    You aren't getting it.  Gay people are supposed to deny what they are,
    and who they love and either live as priests or nuns, or marry someone
    of the opposite sex with whom they may have a friendship and functional
    sex, but none of the deep bonding that incudes real love and romance.  
    
    How dare they do anything else?
    
    How dare a library carry books that might carry a message other than
    heterosexual relationships, or whatever the latest "CFV approved
    community standards" are?
    
    How dare women who are also single parents carry themselves and their
    wonderful children with pride?  Don't they realize they are creating the
    next generation of criminals?  (I will have to tell Lolita that college
    is out and she has to turn to drug dealing, theft or something shady
    since she was raised in a single household for many years.)
    
    How dare gay people, pagans, NARAL, krishna's or others who aren't CFV
    approved ask to have a rally in a public park?  
    
    How dare we allow the local schools to rent space to anything
    contraversial, (unless of course it is a church of an approved faith 
    sponsored function)
    
    meg

          <<< Note 155.244 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	Combat perceived diversion with omission.  I noticed that you
>    	ignored polygamy.

	Omitted because it is really irrelevant. You and Steve can't
	deal with the single issue, so you have to drag all sorts
	of other arguments into the fray.

>  You argument for gay marriages must also
>    	include polygamy (as it must include incest.)

	Well I given you valid, logical reasons for the laws regarding
	incenst. THe fact that you refuse to hear is your problem,
	not mine.

	I can not think of a good reason for the laws regarding polygamy.
	In fact, I would think that you would be up in arms about them,
	since they represent a clear case of government intrusion into
	the religious beliefs of a Christian sect.

>    	These standards were in place at the time the Constitution was
>    	written. 

	Two points. One, there were a lot of standards in place at the
	time the Constitution was written that are no longer valid.
	Two, the portion of the Constitution we are discussing eliminated
	on of those very important standards, the ability of the States
	to violate the rights of certain citizens.

>    	In addition there are no logical reasons for the prohibition
>    	of polygamy.

	You are correct. Start a topic on polygamy and we'll discuss
	it.

>Those that are in place are applied
>    	equally to all citizens.  
 
	It is clear that they are not applied equally to Gays. And no
	matter how often or how loud you keep repeating your assertion
	this will not change the fact that you are wrong.

Jim

             <<< Note 155.249 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    re: government protection of religion (aka- lifestyle choices)
 
Steve,	Please address the justification for adding religion to
	the Civil Rights Act. I won't quibble the 1st Amendment
	(as long as you don't quyibble with the fact that it covers
	ALL religions, and I DO mean ALL).

Jim

             <<< Note 155.251 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    Herein lies the problem, Jim.  Define "segment".  There is no
>    concrete way of identifying a gay person, unless they announce it. 

	I know of no way to identify a Christian, unless they announce
	it. Does this mean that Christians should not be protected?

>    Behavioral tendencies does not a minority make, IMO.

	But behavioral tendencies are, IYO, enough to protect other,
	more socially acceptable minorities. Please explain.

>    There is a difference.  One was racial bigotry.  What you see as being
>    bigotry is not based on the person, but is a bigotry towards sexual
>    preference. 

	How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Your argument
	doesn't wash. Bigotry for reasons of race and bigotry for
	reasons of sexual orientation are BOTH bigotry.

> Not allowing a black man to marry a white woman because he
>    is black, is a far cry from changing the definition of marriage to
>    include what is deemed as sexual deviancy.

	"It goes against nature" was the cry back then. The same
	argument YOU are using today.

>  If you can prove that
>    sexual orientation is equivalent to race in this respect, then you may
>    have a point.  

	Well, I am personally convinced that sexual orientation is
	not a choice if that's what you are trying to get at.

	But the issue is whether the government has the right to prohibit
	the benefits of civil marriage to Gays any more that they had the
	right to prohibit inter-racial marriages.

Jim

    <<< Note 155.256 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

>    I am paying attention, and you <still> need reading comprehension. 
>    Just because life is rough, we DO NOT NEED MORE LEGISLATION !

Dan, 	You address the issue of "more" legislation. What about the laws
	that are already on the books? The Civil Rights Act currently
	protects against discrimination on the basis of race, color,
	nationality, genger and age. Should this current law be repealed?
Jim

             <<< Note 155.258 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    My argument is that not all lifestyle choices should be
>    protected, not that NO lifestyle choices should be protected.  

	So, it's really "My lifestyle should be protected, not those
	OTHER people".

	Thanks for clearing up the confusion.


Jim

    
    re: .262
    
    >Convincing argument, that.  Solid evidence, compellingly presented.
    
     As was .252.... Just because it had more words didn't make it any
    different than .260s one word reply.
    

    
    re: .261
    
    >I rest my case.
    
    and they'd throw it out of court...
    

    
    Andy (or Steve),
    
    You can go to 56.11 if you like and read the article posted there,
    but I really have no intention of doing any further research for you.
    
    As I said, it would be a waste of my time trying to "prove" that
    homosexuality is an innate characteristic to people who reject the
    scientific evidence against `creation'.
    
    Sometimes, people just believe what they want, regardless of the
    evidence.
    
    jc
    

    
    re:.259

    > >Just because life is rough, we DO NOT NEED MORE LEGISLATION !
    > 
    > In other words:  I've got mine; who cares about you?

    I hate to beat the reading comprehension horse, but as long as you try
    to put words in my mouth, it still applies.  

    > In other words:  I've got mine; who cares about you?

    There is no such thing as a level playing field.  Some people waste
    their time complaining about it, others accept reality and play anyway. 
    Still others believe that they are entitled to an advantage because of
    their race, creed, etc. and to gain this advantage they want my money,
    time, job, etc.  This is done under the guise of fairness and equality. 
    I am opposed to creating state sanctioned protected groups.  It goes
    against everything this country was founded on.  Oh, and by the way, I
    don't have mine yet, and I do care about others, but not to the point
    that we should have protected classes of people.  This will only create
    division and hostility.  This legislation you are in favor of, who will
    it help?  How do you propose to enforce it?  You criticize me
    constantly, put your money where your mouth is...

    > >That is not what I said, I said that I could argue the topic in either
    > >favor.  Again, reading comprehension is in order.
    > 
    > Dan, quit grabbing at this "reading comprehension" straw.  

    Learn the skill, and it will save me time.

    > The very
    > fact that you can argue the issue from either side means that you are
    > gutless, or that you are indecisive, or that you don't care enough to
    > take a side.  The `uncaring' option was the most generous I could
    > offer you; what's the REAL reason?  If there *is* no reason, then 
    > you're not contributing to the discussion.

    Gutless, that's a good one... :-)
    Indecisive, 'nother good one... :-)
    Frankly I don't care.  I was not trying to contribute to the discussion
    of people adopting kids.  Let me refresh your fading memory, you asked
    me a question.  Next time try to stay with the program, rather than
    trying to mislead people by blurring the facts.

    > >What I am trying to get through to you is that whining to the government
    > >for more legislation will accomplish exactly zip-ta-de-do-da.
    > 
    > How do you propose gays achieve their goal of same-sex marriages, then?

    Exactly where and how are they prevented from doing this?  Also the 
    subject was job security re: Crackerbarrel etc. do try to stay with the
    program.

    re:.267
    Jim,
    I my opinion, no one should receive preferential treatment based solely
    on their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.  This is wrong.  From
    what I've heard, the bill that's pending in California is something I'd
    be in favor of.

    Dan

    .272

    >I hate to beat the reading comprehension horse, but as long as you try
    >to put words in my mouth, it still applies.  

    I'm not putting words in your mouth, Dan, I'm exposing the aspect of
    your position that you refuse to face:  You, as a heterosexual, do
    not have to worry about discrimination on the basis of sexual orient-
    ation; therefore, it is very easy for you to dismiss the concerns of
    gays and lesbians.

    >There is no such thing as a level playing field.

    As you well know, since you are not playing from the disadvantaged
    position.

    >Still others believe that they are entitled to an advantage because of
    >their race, creed, etc. and to gain this advantage they want my money,
    >time, job, etc. 

    >In my opinion, no one should receive preferential treatment based solely
    >on their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.  This is wrong. 

    With these statements you trumpet your complete and utter cluelessness
    regarding the issue.  Where has anyone in this string even *remotely*
    hinted that gays and lesbian seek an "advantage", or that they want 
    your money or your job, or "preferential treatment"?

    >This legislation you are in favor of, who will
    >it help?  How do you propose to enforce it?

    If the Civil Rights Act is rewritten to prohibit discrimination on the
    basis of sexual orientation, then gays and lesbians will have the same
    legal courses of redress that Christians, women, and blacks enjoy, and
    enforcement would come in much the same manner, I would imagine.

    >Learn the skill, and it will save me time.

    Your insults are getting very stale.  Time to read a new book.

    >I was not trying to contribute to the discussion
    >of people adopting kids. 

    ...and a good job you were doing of it, too.

    >> How do you propose gays achieve their goal of same-sex marriages, then?
    >
    >Exactly where and how are they prevented from doing this?

    You tell me; I'm no expert on American law.  If they *aren't* being
    prevented from marrying, then why is it even an issue down there?

    >Also the subject was job security re: Crackerbarrel etc...

    ...amongst other things.  Don't worry, Dan, you've made it quite
    clear that you firmly support the legal right of employers and landlords
    to discriminate solely on the basis of sexuality.  Your tenacity is 
    impressive, although it puts in the unenviable position of siding with
    the bigots on this issue.  It would be a waste of disk space to
    discuss this subject with you any further.

    jc
    

    >Sometimes, people just believe what they want, regardless of the evidence.
    
    It is actually worse than this. Not only do people believe what they
    want, but they are willing to force those beliefs on everyone else. CFV
    is a perfect example of this, along with a few noters in the box. We
    and they know who they are. And then they have the scrots to imply that
    they are some sort of moral crusaders, protecting us all from so called
    sexual deviancy and other "immoral" crimes. Makes one nauseous. 
    
    ...Tom

    
    re: .273

    > >I hate to beat the reading comprehension horse, but as long as you try
    > >to put words in my mouth, it still applies.  
    > 
    > I'm not putting words in your mouth, Dan, 

    'Fraid you are bucko, that's what it's called when you attribute
    an opinion to someone who has said no such thing.

    > I'm exposing the aspect of
    > your position that you refuse to face:  You, as a heterosexual, do
    > not have to worry about discrimination on the basis of sexual orient-
    > ation; 

    This is true, but irrelevant.

    > therefore, it is very easy for you to dismiss the concerns of gays and 
    > lesbians.

    This is a faulty conclusion.

    > >There is no such thing as a level playing field.
    > 
    > As you well know, since you are not playing from the disadvantaged
    > position.

    And how my friend do you know this?  You know next to nothing about me.
    I suggest you research your subject more thoroughly before making
    unfounded statements like that!

    > >This legislation you are in favor of, who will
    > >it help?  How do you propose to enforce it?
    > 
    > If the Civil Rights Act is rewritten to prohibit discrimination on the
    > basis of sexual orientation, then gays and lesbians will have the same
    > legal courses of redress that Christians, women, and blacks enjoy, and
    > enforcement would come in much the same manner, I would imagine.

    Imagine is correct.  Try looking at reality for once my Canadian
    friend.

    > Your insults are getting very stale.

    As are yours.

    > You tell me; I'm no expert on American law.  

    This much is self-evident.

    > If they *aren't* being prevented from marrying, then why is it even 
    > an issue down there?

    You brought it up, answer your own question.

    > >Also the subject was job security re: Crackerbarrel etc...
    > 
    > ...amongst other things.  Don't worry, Dan, you've made it quite
    > clear that you firmly support the legal right of employers and landlords
    > to discriminate solely on the basis of sexuality.

    There you go putting words in my mouth.  Two words for you...
    "READING COMPREHENSION"

    > Your tenacity is impressive, 

    Being right does that to me.

    > although it puts in the unenviable position of siding with the bigots 
    > on this issue.  

    Good move, smear people who disagree with you.  You've been hanging
    around mr bill too much.

    > It would be a waste of disk space to discuss this subject with you 
    > any further.

    When you are wrong, why admit it, run and hide it's easier... You are
    so predictable John, it's disgusting.  :-{

    Dan
    

    
    One of the features of ALL-IN-1 is the `read receipt', a way of
    allowing the sender to prove that the addressee has read the mail
    message.  It has been suggested by a colleague of mine that the
    `read receipt' is actually insufficient to the task; what is really
    required is an `understand receipt'.
    
    I don't know *what* made me think about that, just now.
    

    Note 155.275

    >>You, as a heterosexual, do
    >> not have to worry about discrimination on the basis of sexual orient-
    >> ation; 
    >
    >This is true, but irrelevant.

    Irrelevant?  Hardly.

    >> As you well know, since you are not playing from the disadvantaged
    >> position.
    >
    >And how my friend do you know this?  You know next to nothing about me.
    >I suggest you research your subject more thoroughly before making
    >unfounded statements like that!

    I know this because you admitted it when you said "This is true, but
    irrelevant."  By all accounts, I hear you are an able-bodied white 
    male.  Care to demonstrate exactly what your disadvantage is, or do
    you just plan to play coy?

    >Imagine is correct.  Try looking at reality for once my Canadian
    >friend.

    Put up or shut up, Dan.  In what way was my statement incorrect?

    >> You tell me; I'm no expert on American law.  
    >
    >This much is self-evident.

    Then brutalize me with facts, Dan.  Where in the U.S. are gays 
    allowed to marry?  Where are they forbidden to marry?

    >You brought it up, answer your own question.

    You've none, I take it?

    >There you go putting words in my mouth.  Two words for you...
    >"READING COMPREHENSION"

    Yawn.  Then you *don't* support the legal right to discriminate on
    the basis of sexuality?  Well then, you should have no problem with
    the rewording of the Civil Rights Act.

    >Being right does that to me.

    Hasn't anyone ever told you that it's undignified to gratify yourself
    in public?

    >> although it puts you in the unenviable position of siding with the 
    >>bigots on this issue.  
    >
    >Good move, smear people who disagree with you.

    You smeared yourself, Dan.  

    >When you are wrong, why admit it, run and hide it's easier... You are
    >so predictable John, it's disgusting.  :-{

    Counting towels?
  
    jc
     

        re: .277

    > Care to demonstrate exactly what your disadvantage is, or do
    > you just plan to play coy?

    Not playing coy, just don't go around crying about how life is unfair
    to me.  Others around this country should try this.

    > >Imagine is correct.  Try looking at reality for once my Canadian
    > >friend.
    > 
    > Put up or shut up, Dan.  In what way was my statement incorrect?

    Ever heard of Affirmative Action?

    > Then brutalize me with facts, Dan.  Where in the U.S. are gays 
    > allowed to marry?  Where are they forbidden to marry?

    Don't know, you brought it up, you seem to be the expert.

    > Yawn.  Then you *don't* support the legal right to discriminate on
    > the basis of sexuality?  Well then, you should have no problem with
    > the rewording of the Civil Rights Act.

    Go back and re-read what I've written, maybe you'll understand then,

    > >When you are wrong, why admit it, run and hide it's easier... You are
    > >so predictable John, it's disgusting.  :-{
    > 
    > Counting towels?

    huh?

    Dan

	well, this is almost as meaningful as the god/goddess
	discussion, i must say. ;>

    
    <------
    
    What kind of phobia would that be???
    

 .280  phobia?  i don't getcha.

    The god/goddess debate was a classic.

    
    re: .281
    
    There's gotta be a phobia out there for the fear of
    gods/goddesses/whatever....

    I've decided that I have luposlipaphobia.

    
    .278

    >Not playing coy, just don't go around crying about how life is unfair
    >to me.  Others around this country should try this.

    The point you appear to be making here is "been there, done that".
    Am I correct?  So...*where* you been, *what* you done?
    
    >Ever heard of Affirmative Action?

    Ummm...yes.  How does this disprove my statement that a rewritten Civil
    Rights Act would protect gays with the same mechanism it protects blacks,
    women, and Christians?
    
    >Don't know, you brought it up, you seem to be the expert.

    Okay, then.  Gay marriages are not legal anywhere in the U.S. except
    Hawaii, and that case is still under appeal.  Is this incorrect?
    
    >Go back and re-read what I've written, maybe you'll understand then,

    Note that I never said you support discrimination, just that you support
    the legal right to discriminate.  The distinction may be too subtle for
    you.
    
    >huh?

    :^)
    
    jc
    

    re: .265
    
    Justification can be found in the First Amendment.  Religion is of
    value to society, thus it should be protected.  Adding this clause to
    the Civil Rights Act is merely an expansion of First Amendment
    protection. 
    
    Personally, I'm not sure why it was added, as the justification for
    this Act was almost solely based on the racial issues in this nation.
    
    
    -steve

    
    .279:
    
    :^)   :^)   :^)
    
    By the way, who *were* the protaganists in that one?  Chelsea and...
    
    

   <<< Note 155.285 by TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!" >>>

    
>    >Ever heard of Affirmative Action?

>    Ummm...yes.  How does this disprove my statement that a rewritten Civil
>    Rights Act would protect gays with the same mechanism it protects blacks,
>    women, and Christians?
 
	It is possible that Dan is unaware that the Civil Rights Act of
	1964 (amended) is different from the various AA programs starting
	with the original Executive Order.

	We'll see.

Jim

             <<< Note 155.286 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    Justification can be found in the First Amendment.  Religion is of
>    value to society, thus it should be protected.  Adding this clause to
>    the Civil Rights Act is merely an expansion of First Amendment
>    protection. 
 
	Tidy, unconvincing, but tidy. The Civil Rights Act applies to 
	individuals and companies. The religious protection from the
	government is contained in the 1st. Why should the government
	impose on individuals to protect your lifestyle choice?
   
>    Personally, I'm not sure why it was added, as the justification for
>    this Act was almost solely based on the racial issues in this nation.
 
	It would seem that you are uneducated as to the provisions of the
	Civil Rights Act. The reason for the Act was to extend the 
	prohibitions against discrimination that already applied to
	the Federal and State governments to private individuals and
	companies. Initially this protection was only offered on the
	basis of race, color or national origin. Other reasons have
	been added since (gender, age and religion).

Jim

    
>>    By the way, who *were* the protaganists in that one?  Chelsea and...

    no, no.  the man Chelsea, my dear.
    
    

    
    <---- :^)
    

    
    re:.285

    > >Ever heard of Affirmative Action?
    > 
    > Ummm...yes.  How does this disprove my statement that a rewritten Civil
    > Rights Act would protect gays with the same mechanism it protects blacks,
    > women, and Christians?

    Affirmative Action was an answer to my statement of looking at reality. 
    My suggestion that you look at reality was in regards to your lack of
    understanding how these laws wind up really being enforced.  Please
    stop trying to blur the discussion.

    John your attempts at humor leave much to be desired, don't quit your
    day job.

    Dan

    
    You were right, Jim.  He *was* unaware.
    
    ;^)
    

    <<< Note 155.292 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>Please
>    stop trying to blur the discussion.

	You mean like using AA abuses in a discssion of the Civil 
	Rights Act? That kind of blurring?

Jim

   <<< Note 155.293 by TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!" >>>

    
>    You were right, Jim.  He *was* unaware.
 
	I had a feeling. Not an uncommon mistake for those who have not
	done their homework.

Jim

    
    I notice John that you did not address the substance of what I said,
    just took pot shots at me.  You have been hanging around mr bill too
    long.

    Jim, I expect this kind of thing from John, but from you it surprises
    me.

    Dan

    <<< Note 155.264 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Omitted because it is really irrelevant. You and Steve can't
>	deal with the single issue, so you have to drag all sorts
>	of other arguments into the fray.
    
    	The single issue is that society can place (and has placed)
    	limitations on the legal institution of marriage.  Those
    	restrictions are equally applied to all citizens.  Limiting
    	marriage to different-gender partners is but one such
    	limitation.  Nothing is being dragged in here.  You just
    	want to eliminate those things which weaken your argument.

>	Well I given you valid, logical reasons for the laws regarding
>	incenst. THe fact that you refuse to hear is your problem,
>	not mine.
    
    	I've given you valid reasons why they might not matter.  Did
    	you not hear them?

>	Two, the portion of the Constitution we are discussing eliminated
>	on of those very important standards, the ability of the States
>	to violate the rights of certain citizens.
    
    	Yet at the time of that amendment, the prevailing societal
    	standards were not considered a problem.  You'd think that
    	with the euphoria of the new amendment there would have been
    	sweeping eliminations of unjust standards.  Why has it taken
    	until now to discover these horrible standards?

>	It is clear that they are not applied equally to Gays. And no
>	matter how often or how loud you keep repeating your assertion
>	this will not change the fact that you are wrong.

    	... he asserts...

    
    .296
    
    >I notice John that you did not address the substance of what I said,
    >just took pot shots at me. 
    
    Jim addressed this.  You are confusing AA and quotas with a person's
    right to sue for wrongful dismissal or some other form of anti-gay
    discrimination.

    >Jim, I expect this kind of thing from John, but from you it surprises
    >me.

    Yes, Jim IS definitely a classier act than myself.  Just note: Jim P.
    is one of only two people who have nailed my head to the floor in this
    conference.  Watch out for him!!  :^)
    
    jc                            
    

    
    Jim,
    
     In it's wording (or lack thereof), whom does the Civil Rights Act of
    19964 exclude??

    re: .266
    
>	I know of no way to identify a Christian, unless they announce
>	it. Does this mean that Christians should not be protected?

    Religion is deemed to have an important place in society.  Our FF viewed 
    it as NECESSARY to society and the Constitution.  If you doubt the 
    competency of their view in this matter, I believe I can make ample
    argument that suggests that these veiws are quite correct- but that's
    another topic.
    
>	But behavioral tendencies are, IYO, enough to protect other,
>	more socially acceptable minorities. Please explain.

    When the behavioral tendencies are deemed valuable to society- even
    necessary- then they should be protected.  When behavioral tendencies
    are considered to have a harmful effect, then they should not be
    protected.
    
    Society determines what is acceptable and what isn't.  If there is a
    strong  case to change current law, then sooner or later, it will be
    changed.  I do not see a strong case to defend deviant
    sexualities/behaviors via law.  The precedent this would set may even
    surprise you down the road as legislative evolution takes its course.
    
>>    There is a difference.  One was racial bigotry.  What you see as being
>>    bigotry is not based on the person, but is a bigotry towards sexual
>>    preference. 

>	How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Your argument
>	doesn't wash. Bigotry for reasons of race and bigotry for
>	reasons of sexual orientation are BOTH bigotry.

    Bigotry towards a behavior (or sexual preference, if you prefer) is no
    the same thing as bigotry against an individual.  I'm not trying to
    rationalize firing someone just because they are gay.  What I'm trying
    to do is show that society does not have to accept every behavior or
    preference into its institutions due to some generic personal freedom.
    
    Homosexuals are free to bond/have sex with whomever they like.  This is
    freedom.  Just because society will not santion such a union legally,
    does no mean that they are being wrongfully discriminated against.  If
    it is discrimination, then it is based on the fact that society sees
    marriage as one man and one woman.  Society defines what their
    institutions are.  Other nations allow bigamy- we don't, even though
    there are probably a lot of people who wish it were allowed and feel
    that there is nothing wrong with it. 
    
>	"It goes against nature" was the cry back then. The same
>	argument YOU are using today.

    No, my argument is that there is no such inherant "freedom" of
    marriage, outside the standards that society sets for it.  Sexual
    preference is not inherantly valued by society in all its forms- some
    of which I've listed in previouls notes (which you seem to quickly
    dismiss).  Only one form is viewed as proper by society- thus sanctioned 
    by the state via marriage.  The Constitution provides no right to
    usurpt community standards of sexual morality.  It also does not
    preclude changing standards, if a state does wish to change its laws. 
    Currently, society is not yet ready to expand the definition of
    marriage.
    
>	But the issue is whether the government has the right to prohibit
>	the benefits of civil marriage to Gays any more that they had the
>	right to prohibit inter-racial marriages.

    Federal or state governments?
    
    Federal?  No.  State?  Yes.  It should prohibit marriages that are
    outside the basic definition of said institution (one man and one woman).
    See SCOTUS cases I brought up earlier.  The commentary on the 1889
    ruling also backs up my above definition.
    
    
    -steve

    
    Have ta get a new keyboard....

    <<< Note 155.296 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

>    Jim, I expect this kind of thing from John, but from you it surprises
>    me.

Dan,	Ignorance is not a sin. Arguing from ignorance is.

Jim

    
    Jim, when have I ever argued in favor of ignorance?
    
    Dan
    

    favour
    
    nnttm

    
    BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaa {gasp!}
    

    It's just your bilinguality showing through again Glenn.

    .304
    
    > Jim, when have I ever argued in favor of ignorance?
    
    Q.E.D.

          <<< Note 155.297 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	The single issue is that society can place (and has placed)
>    	limitations on the legal institution of marriage. 

	Society has, and still does, place limitations on legal
	marriages.

> Those
>    	restrictions are equally applied to all citizens. 

	Those restrictions have not, and today are not, always 
	applied equally to all citizens.

> Limiting
>    	marriage to different-gender partners is but one such
>    	limitation.  

	Limiting marriage to same-race partners was another at one
	time.

>Nothing is being dragged in here. 

	Steve drags in 12 year olds, you drag in first cousins. The
	discussion is about how Gays are being treated unequally.
	Not about whether Gays, or anyone else, should be able to marry
	their mother.

> You just
>    	want to eliminate those things which weaken your argument.

	You HAVE to drag these into your argument because, on its
	very foundation, it is so weak that you can not argue the
	single topic.

>    	I've given you valid reasons why they might not matter.  Did
>    	you not hear them?

	Yes I did, but I didn't want to give in to your diversion.
	OK, I'll play your game for a moment. Please name a method
	of birth control that is 100% effective.

>    	Yet at the time of that amendment, the prevailing societal
>    	standards were not considered a problem. 

	Quite true. Nightriders, Jim Crow laws, "Seperate but Equal",
	laws against inter-racial marriage. None of these were considered
	a problem by society. Do you really want to take on the task
	of defending these standards?

Jim

<<< Note 155.299 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

    
>     In it's wording (or lack thereof), whom does the Civil Rights Act of
>    19964 exclude??

	It is the lack of wording. The Civil Rights Act is "enabling" in
	nature. Those specifically named are covered under the law. Those
	that are not named, are not.

Jim

    
    > Please name a method of birth control that is 100% effective.

    Abstinence.

    HTH
    Dan

    
    re: .310
    
    Jim,
    
     Bear with me... I was a wee lad in 19964! ;)
    
    Who are some of those not named??
    

             <<< Note 155.301 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    Religion is deemed to have an important place in society.  Our FF viewed 
>    it as NECESSARY to society and the Constitution.  If you doubt the 
>    competency of their view in this matter, I believe I can make ample
>    argument that suggests that these veiws are quite correct- but that's
>    another topic.
 
	But Steve, your argument against equal rights for Gays was that
	they can not be visibly identified. Either your argument has
	no merit, or the same logic should be applied to Christians
	(or any other religious belief).

>    When the behavioral tendencies are deemed valuable to society- even
>    necessary- then they should be protected.  When behavioral tendencies
>    are considered to have a harmful effect, then they should not be
>    protected.
 
	First you would have to define, even prove, a potential for harm
	regarding the issue under discussion. Then you might have a case.
	I doubt that you can do it. All you have right now is "I don't
	like it". That should NEVER be enough to justify discrimination. 

>    Bigotry towards a behavior (or sexual preference, if you prefer) is no
>    the same thing as bigotry against an individual. 

	The laws said blacks can't marry whites. No individual was named
	in the law. It was an entire class of people. EXACTLY the same
	case as we have today with Gays.

>    Homosexuals are free to bond/have sex with whomever they like.  This is
>    freedom.  Just because society will not santion such a union legally,
>    does no mean that they are being wrongfully discriminated against.

	You say that they can everything EXCEPT enjoy the benefits of
	legal marriage. But that's not "wrongful" dicrimination.
	I guess we have a very different view of wrongful dicrimination.

>>	But the issue is whether the government has the right to prohibit
>>	the benefits of civil marriage to Gays any more that they had the
>>	right to prohibit inter-racial marriages.

>    Federal or state governments?
    
>    Federal?  No.  State?  Yes.  It should prohibit marriages that are
>    outside the basic definition of said institution (one man and one woman).
>    See SCOTUS cases I brought up earlier.  The commentary on the 1889
>    ruling also backs up my above definition.
 

	So you tell me that a SCOTUS decision from 1889 (a time when 
	inter-racial marriage WAS outlawed) backs up your argument 
	that bans on inter-racial marriages and Gay marriages are
	"different". Somehow that doesn't make very much sense,
	does it?

Jim

    <<< Note 155.304 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    Jim, when have I ever argued in favor of ignorance?
 
Dan,	Go back and re-read .303. I didn't say "for", I said "from".

Jim

    <<< Note 155.311 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    > Please name a method of birth control that is 100% effective.

>    Abstinence.

	I thought we were discusing people that were alive. ;-)

Jim

    > Please name a method of birth control that is 100% effective.
    
    Fellatio.  Cunnilingus.  Sodomy.

<<< Note 155.312 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

    
>     Bear with me... I was a wee lad in 19964! ;)
 
	So was I, but when you make the mistake of managing people,	
	you have to learn all sorts of stuff. ;-)

>    Who are some of those not named??
 
	Well Gays are obvious, persons that hold certain political beliefs
	would not be covered, people who are ill, there are sorts of 
	"uncovered" areas.

	Maybe an example would help.   

	A company interviews a candidate. the candidate is Black. The 
	company doesn't want to hire a Black. It is against the law
	to discriminate on the basis of race, so they say "I think
	you are Gay, so you are not going to get the job". The candidate
	has no legal recourse.

Jim

     <<< Note 155.316 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

>    > Please name a method of birth control that is 100% effective.
    
>    Fellatio.  Cunnilingus.  Sodomy.

	You'll forgive the crudeness, but that's a list that would support
	Gays not being subject to laws against incest.

Jim

    
    Jim,
    Prove where the meaning of my argument is incorrect.  Neither you nor
    John have succeeded in doing this.  Some of my details may not meet your
    level of nit-picking, but my concepts are correct.  I have found that
    the people who attack you on the small nits, and avoid the main gist
    are nearly always wrong.  As was John in this case.
    
    Dan

    <<< Note 155.309 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Society has, and still does, place limitations on legal
>	marriages.
    
    	Now we're getting somewhere.

>	Those restrictions have not, and today are not, always 
>	applied equally to all citizens.
    
    	If you are referring to same-sex partners, all citizens are
    	equally limited by it.  I reject your argument of special
    	application for varying sexual orientations.

>	Limiting marriage to same-race partners was another at one
>	time.
    
    	And it changed.  Rightly so.
    
>	Steve drags in 12 year olds, you drag in first cousins. The
>	discussion is about how Gays are being treated unequally.
>	Not about whether Gays, or anyone else, should be able to marry
>	their mother.
>
>	You HAVE to drag these into your argument because, on its
>	very foundation, it is so weak that you can not argue the
>	single topic.
    
    	And apparently, then, you  have to drag in religion because
    	your argument is so weak that you cannot argue the single
    	topic.  To wit:
    
.313>	But Steve, your argument against equal rights for Gays was that
>	they can not be visibly identified. Either your argument has
>	no merit, or the same logic should be applied to Christians
>	(or any other religious belief).

    	Either your argument, Jim, has no merit, or the same logic
    	should be applied to polygamy, underage spouses, incestuous
    	marriages, etc.  Your own words betray you, Jim.  You can't 
    	have it both ways.

>	OK, I'll play your game for a moment. Please name a method
>	of birth control that is 100% effective.
    
    	As has already been stated, abstinence is one such method.
    	Of course you have already poo-poo'd it because it crushes
    	your argument.  Sterilization is also nearly 100% effective.
    	I'm not sure why I mentioned it, though, because you'll 
    	hang your entire argument on the rare exception case...

>>    	Yet at the time of that amendment, the prevailing societal
>>    	standards were not considered a problem. 
>
>	Quite true. Nightriders, Jim Crow laws, "Seperate but Equal",
>	laws against inter-racial marriage. None of these were considered
>	a problem by society. Do you really want to take on the task
>	of defending these standards?

	Why should I defend them?  They WERE considered problems, and
    	they have all been changed, and the change was for the better
    	morally.  What you are arguing for is a step backwards morally.

    
    re: .317
    
    So who besides gays is excluded??
    

    <<< Note 155.319 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    Prove where the meaning of my argument is incorrect. 

Dan, 	The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing
	and the use of public accomodations for specific reasons. The law
	was passed by Congress in 1964 and has been amended (adding more
	reasons) since. Current list as I understand it is, Race, color,
	national origin, gender, age, religion or handicap.

	Affirmative Action was originally established via Executive Order
	11246. This order requires companies that are government contractors
	or sub-contractors to establish AA plans and to monitor and report
	on their performance to these plans. AA applies only to racial 
	minorities and women (Viet-era Vets may have been added since my
	book was published).

	Therefore, in a discussion concerning the Civil Rights Act a reference
	to AA is in error. They are two very seperate laws, with two very
	seperate goals.

>Some of my details may not meet your
>    level of nit-picking, but my concepts are correct. 

	When discussing the changing of laws, it is important to understand
	the law that is being discussed. This is not a nit. Your concepts
	about the Civil Rights Act are certainly incorrect.

Jim

    
    Jim,

    That was not the major point of my comments.  I was talking about gays
    not becoming a protected group.  I am opposed to having special classes
    of citizens.  Did you miss this part of the discussion?  This is THE
    CORE ISSUE.

    Dan

    
    > Therefore, in a discussion concerning the Civil Rights Act a reference
    > to AA is in error. They are two very seperate laws, with two very
    > seperate goals.
    
    What is the goal of AA?
    

          <<< Note 155.320 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	Now we're getting somewhere.

	Unlikely.

>>	Those restrictions have not, and today are not, always 
>>	applied equally to all citizens.
    
>    	If you are referring to same-sex partners, all citizens are
>    	equally limited by it.

	I disagree, but actually it was not just this. note that "have
	not" is past tense. CAn you name a marriage law that was applied
	unequally in the past?

>  I reject your argument of special
>    	application for varying sexual orientations.

	No kidding.

>>	Limiting marriage to same-race partners was another at one
>>	time.
    
>    	And it changed.  Rightly so.
 
	Why rightly so? It was changed first by the courts and only then
	changed in the law. The SAME logic applies to the prohibitions
	against Gays today. It's just a '90s form of bigotry to replace
	the '50s sort of bigotry.
   
>    	Either your argument, Jim, has no merit, or the same logic
>    	should be applied to polygamy, underage spouses, incestuous
>    	marriages, etc.  Your own words betray you, Jim.  You can't 
>    	have it both ways.

	Joe, you continue to amaze me with your lack of skills. I did
	not drag Christians into the debate. I pointed out the faulty 
	logic that Steve used in one particular argument. He made the
	claim that those who are not readily identifiable can not be
	given protection. This logic would eliminate the various protections
	afforded religious beliefs.

>Sterilization is also nearly 100% effective.

	Did you ever read the informed choice document that accompanies
	surgical sterilization? I quote "this procedure MAY (emphasis
	added) render you sterile and unable to have children".

	And we should note "nearly 100%" is not 100%.

>    	I'm not sure why I mentioned it, though, because you'll 
>    	hang your entire argument on the rare exception case...

	Depends on your definition of rare. 99.5% effective is the 
	number we were given. That half percent can add up to a lot of
	babies.

>	Why should I defend them?  They WERE considered problems,

	Not in 1865. Which was what your question addressed.

> and
>    	they have all been changed,

	As will the laws concerning Gays

> and the change was for the better
>    	morally.

	Funny, on this we agree.

>  What you are arguing for is a step backwards morally.

	Not by my definintion.

Jim

    .318
    
    Non sequitur.  The problem was to name a method of birth control that
    is 100% effective.  I named three, NONE of which is restricted to gays.

<<< Note 155.321 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

    
>    re: .317
    
>    So who besides gays is excluded??
  
	From .317:

	" Well Gays are obvious, persons that hold certain political beliefs
        would not be covered, people who are ill, there are sorts of
        "uncovered" areas."

	As I tried to show via example it is not so much who as why.
	Everyone, including Gays, is "covered" (via the gender clause),
	but the reason for inclusion is dicrimination based on gender
	only. Same for the other reasons.
	
	Does that help?

Jim

    <<< Note 155.323 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    That was not the major point of my comments.

	You raised the issue of AA as a personal example of discrimination
	that you had suffered. Thus our confusion.	

>  I was talking about gays
>    not becoming a protected group.  I am opposed to having special classes
>    of citizens. 
	
	Do you have a better way to word the Civil Rights Act, or are
	you looking to repeal it?

Jim

    <<< Note 155.324 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    What is the goal of AA?
 
	To increase the representitive populations of minorities and
	women in the workplace. The order requires that companies 
	identify under representation and develop plans to improve
	that representation.

Jim

     <<< Note 155.326 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

>    Non sequitur.  The problem was to name a method of birth control that
>    is 100% effective.  I named three, NONE of which is restricted to gays.

	I've played along quite enough. You have not mentioned 3 methods of
	birth control (under any common definition). You have mentioned
	3 rather interesting sexual practices that are unlikely to 
	result in birth. Not the same thing at all.

	It is you that has been guilty on replying with a non-sequitor.
	You could have just as easily have called reading a book, taking
	a cold shower or going for a long, lonely drive as mehtods of
	"birth control".


Jim

| <<< Note 155.218 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| > You are then left with 2 options. Explain why you won't list a boss, or
| > lie that this coworker is a boss.

| Hardly, you don't have to explain anything to anyone.  

	So no one has ever asked if it was ok to call your last company? 

| god Glen, you suffer from tunnel vision.  If you are asked why you left
| your previous job, a) don't fill in that spot on the app. b) tell them
| you felt that you were not going anywhere in that position. (this is
| true) c) or some other gobbledygook that the HR people will eat up.

	b would not be true in every case. A person could be doing well, and
then get fired. a wouldn't be wise to do, and c would be trying to pull
something over on someone, which would be lying.

| It will not work if you convince your self it will not. This is your mistake. 

	No, the mistake is in losing the job in the first place when your job
performance never came into play. That is the problem. 

| > | If you did, you were not fired for being homosexual....
| >
| > Hello.... we were talking about being fired for being gay. But I also
| > included under your system it could be for nationality, etc. Do you feel
| > the same way for that as well?

| Please read more carefully, I said if you had succeeded in ticking off
| everyone that you had worked for in those ten years, you were not being
| fired for being gay.  

	Dan, you went off on a tangent again. :-)  I want you to include
nationality in your answers, or at least acknowledge that one can be fired
for that reason. Cuz under your version, now laws will be in place to stop
anyone in this country from being fired for who they are, and not based on
their job performance.

| I cannot prevent people from doing what they are going to do, but I am in 
| COMPLETE CONTROL of how I let it affect me.  

	This is where you lose it. You can prevent it from happening in a lot
of cases. While a law for murder does not stop everyone, I bet it does stop a
lot of people. AND, when there is a law in place, it does allow you to be in
complete control of being fired for reasons other than job perfomance.

| If I wallow in self-pity, this is my choice.  

	No need to wallow in self pity when you have recourse. 

| Read your own notes, you seem to enjoy being persecuted.  If this is
| not true, it is still how it appears to this observer.

	Can you give some examples? I don't see it.


Glen

| <<< Note 155.238 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>


| on the other hand, how many marriages would occur for the sole purpose of 
| obtaining (extremely expensive) hiv-related illness coverage?

	I thought there was always one of those clauses that state you can't
have pre-existing illinesses? But to answer your question, I would venture to
say that both het and gay people would be in the same boat on this, wouldn't
you say so Brian? If pre-existing illnesses are allowed, my guess is that there
would be some from both orientations who would take advantage. Do you have any
numbers on what heterosexuals are doing now Brian?



Glen

| <<< Note 155.242 by TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!" >>>

| >Legalization of homosexual "marriage" just might affect you, personally,
| >Mark.  It might affect what you pay in taxes, insurance, etc.  And it
| >might affect you in ways you don't even notice.

| But...but...but I thought that gays represented only an "insignificant"
| minority, something along the lines of 1-2% of the population.  If that
| is the case, how big would you expect the financial impact to be?

	Joan.... the 1-2% come in handy when they want to make us look
insignifigant, but then the numbers that they swear are true get the inflation
factor thrown in when one is trying to keep us in what they believe is our
place.


Glen

| <<< Note 155.249 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>



	Steve, the more you write, the more you show that God isn't the only
thing that is in your make-up. 



Glen

| <<< Note 155.254 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| >	Whoa Joe.... that's not what heterosexuals want out of a
| >state-sanctioned marriage either. So lets deal with reality.

| I agree with you.

| So tell me, what do gays want out of state-sanctioned marriage?


	I don't know what all gays want. For *me*, I want to be able to marry
the man of my dreams. I'd like to be able to not worry about any will I write
leaving it all to him, things like that. 

	I'm sure different people have different reasons for wanting to get
married. Some would do it for love (which is when I would want to do it), some
would do it for tax purposes, some will do it for the sake of being married
(which I believe is one big reason why marriages tend to fail). Too many
reasons to know what they all are Joe. But it is safe to say the reasons
overlap between straight/gay. I don't see a big difference for reasons to
marry.



Glen

| <<< Note 155.256 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

| > Dan, we've come to take your house away. WE don't have to give a
| > reason, cuz it doesn't matter. It is just happening.

| There is something called equity, so the analogy doesn't work, try again.

	Dan, the government can come in and take your house if they want. They
do it now. So with no laws to prevent people from doing this, more than just
the government can step in. BTW, this equity.... just where did it originate
from? Did the government have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with it? If so, guess
what??? It's gone..... 

| > Kiss your job good-bye. Don't worry about the reason, cuz it doesn't
| > matter.

| Correct, it does not matter why.

	Wow..... I hope they come take your job away. I want to never hear you
got upset over it at all. That you just shrugged your shoulders and moved
on....

| > We're taking your entire family away from you. It doesn't matter about
| > the reason.

| Glen, what are you trying to show with this statement?

	That your logic will lead to laws going away, and it won't matter who
does what. You want government gone.... so now anyone can do what they want and
don't need to give you a reason for doing it.


| Glen, please read what I wrote before you respond, they can say anything they 
| want to about you.  

	Did I ever deny that? Nope. I did say if your job performance was good,
you have a good chance of getting a good rating. 

| You need to stop being such a victim, and get on with life.

	You know.... I've seen you write this, and you said based on my notes
that gave you this impression. Yet in not one note have I ever said what I
would do. What I have done is to try and show you where your logic is flawed.
With discrimination laws in place, one has recourse to help ensure this does
not happen to anyone else from this company. Now let me ask you.... how many
people who have won discrimination cases and received their back pay, have
stayed at that company? Not too many I would imagine. So when you start facing
the facts, and get off of your victim trail, you might see a whole list of
options are out there right now. There would be fewer option for a person if
there were no such laws.

| In response to present employer the answer is ALWAYS no.  No sense creating 
| problems in your current working situation.  

	Different strokes for different folks I guess. If I am looking for
another job, I don't mind if they call my old one. In a couple of cases it
ended up helping me out in the end. I guess they needed me. 



Glen

| <<< Note 155.272 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| I hate to beat the reading comprehension horse, but as long as you try
| to put words in my mouth, it still applies.

	And what you're doing with this victim thing is..... what?



Glen

    Stop moaning ya big queen!
    
    ;*) hee hee

    <<< Note 155.325 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Why rightly so? It was changed first by the courts and only then
>	changed in the law. The SAME logic applies to the prohibitions
>	against Gays today. It's just a '90s form of bigotry to replace
>	the '50s sort of bigotry.
    
    	The difference comes down to the last part of your .325.
    	You don't see certain things as immoral.  Currently 
    	society holds them to be so.  You continue to rely on
    	the fact that SOME things that were seen as immoral in the
    	past are not seen that way today.  Sure, that opens the
    	door of hope to those who want to practice (or support
    	the practice of) these immoral things, but that's about
    	all you can use them for now.  Past precedence doesn't
    	necessarily mean that all other things will follow.
   
>	Joe, you continue to amaze me with your lack of skills. I did
>	not drag Christians into the debate. I pointed out the faulty 
>	logic that Steve used in one particular argument. 
    
    	By dragging in Christianity.  Forget it, Jim.  You clearly
    	want to deny me the use of analogy while you allow yourself
    	the use of the same.  A terrible double standard.  Unfair.

                  <<< Note 155.335 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| So tell me, what do gays want out of state-sanctioned marriage?
    
    	(your list followed)
    
    	All the things you listed (that state-sanctioned marriage can
    	provide) were legal or financial.  That was my point.

          <<< Note 155.339 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


>    	The difference comes down to the last part of your .325.
>   	You don't see certain things as immoral.  Currently 
>   	society holds them to be so.  You continue to rely on
>   	the fact that SOME things that were seen as immoral in the
>    	past are not seen that way today. 

	So what you are saying is that if society should someday
	consider inter-racial marriages to once again be immoral
	then it would be perfectly OK for the the States to ban them 
	again? You also seem to be saying that, in that time, it WAS
	OK to prohibit such marriages. You also seem to be saying
	that bigotry is OK as long as the majority agrees.

	Did I get all that right?

	But again, I notice, we have to discuss "morality" instead 
	of the law. Why is that? Why is it that freedom of religion
	does not include the right to not be religious? Why is it
	that those that do not share your beliefs are not given
	the full and equal protection of the laws?

>Past precedence doesn't
>    	necessarily mean that all other things will follow.
 
	No, it doesn't. But we can take heart in the fact that the
	trends to date have followed a fairly unwavering path to
	the recognition of more personal freedoms for minorities.
	I do hope that we see that trend continue until all citizens
	are considered full and equal partners in this society.

>    	By dragging in Christianity.  Forget it, Jim.  You clearly
>    	want to deny me the use of analogy while you allow yourself
>    	the use of the same.  A terrible double standard.  Unfair.

	You can have the use of analogy, as long as you keep to the topic
	under discussion. Steve first raised the issue of lifestyle
	choices not being a reason for protection. The issue of the
	Christian lifestyle was raised. He backpedaled saying SOME
	lifestyle choices can be protected. He then raised the objection
	of protection for individuals that can not be visibly identified.
	He was then challenged to respond to the fact that Christians
	are not visibly identifiable. The example could have just as
	easily used those that practice Wicca, but it seemed easier
	to use a frame of reference that was closer to Steve's beliefs.

	Your "analogies", on the other hand, use extreme and for the most
	part ridiculous strawmen to bolster you arguments. Not the same
	thing at all.

Jim

          <<< Note 155.340 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


>    	All the things you listed (that state-sanctioned marriage can
>    	provide) were legal or financial.  That was my point.

	"Love" is a legal or financial reason?

	Tell me Joe, why do you think that Hets want to get married?
	Make a list. Then scratch out "Het" write in "Gay". You'll pretty
	much have the answer to your own question.

	
Jim

    
    Jim specifically, and all 'boxers in general:

    > You raised the issue of AA as a personal example of discrimination
    > that you had suffered. Thus our confusion.	

    I'm afraid there is a mis-communication someplace, I never intentionally
    raised AA as a personal example of discrimination that I had suffered. 
    I have not mentioned explicitly any personal suffering, I prefer not to
    be a whining victim.  
    
    I mentioned AA as a problem with the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act.  
    I believe that this is a valid statement because if we did not have the 
    Civil Rights Act, I strongly suspect that AA would never have existed.  
    The problem that I have with the CRA is that it lists out characteristics. 
    I would much prefer something along the lines of no discrimination against 
    anyone, or preferential treatment for anyone.  The listing out of 
    characteristics is the first step in creating a caste (sp) system in 
    which we wind up with preferred groups.  Allowing certain groups of 
    people preferential treatment based on a characteristic such as race is 
    WRONG !  That is the major gist of all of my notes.  I fail to see where 
    I am wrong in this belief. 
    
    Please educate me.

    respectfully,
    Dan

    
    re:.331

> | god Glen, you suffer from tunnel vision.  If you are asked why you left
> | your previous job, a) don't fill in that spot on the app. b) tell them
> | you felt that you were not going anywhere in that position. (this is
> | true) c) or some other gobbledygook that the HR people will eat up.
> 
> 	b would not be true in every case. A person could be doing well, and
> then get fired. a wouldn't be wise to do, and c would be trying to pull
> something over on someone, which would be lying.

    If you are being fired, or have been fired, I assure you that you are
    not going ANYWHERE in that position.  Therefore B) would ALWAYS be
    true.  

    > a wouldn't be wise to do, 

    In your opinion....

    > c ...would be lying.

    Only if you are careless with your wording, which near as I can tell no
    one in this 'box is... :-)

> | I cannot prevent people from doing what they are going to do, but I am in 
> | COMPLETE CONTROL of how I let it affect me.  
> 
> 	This is where you lose it. You can prevent it from happening in a lot
> of cases. While a law for murder does not stop everyone, I bet it does stop a
> lot of people. AND, when there is a law in place, it does allow you to be in
> complete control of being fired for reasons other than job performance.

    Interesting, but wrong.

> | Read your own notes, you seem to enjoy being persecuted.  If this is
> | not true, it is still how it appears to this observer.
> 
>     Can you give some examples? I don't see it.

    Nearly all of the notes of your's that I have read in this, the gay
    issues topic, etc. are of the vein... "Oh things are so terrible for
    gays because of...."  That to me sounds like someone who enjoys being a
    victim.

> | > Kiss your job good-bye. Don't worry about the reason, cuz it doesn't
> | > matter.
> 
> | Correct, it does not matter why.
> 
>     Wow..... I hope they come take your job away. I want to never hear you 
>     got upset over it at all. That you just shrugged your shoulders and moved
>     on....

    Been there, done that.....

    Dan

    .330
    
    > I've played along quite enough.
    
    You poor baby.
    
    If abstinence qualifies as birth control, which it does for pretty
    nearly everyone except perhaps poor miffed Jim Percival, then sexual
    practices not involving genital-to-genital intercourse equally qualify. 
    More so, in fact, as such practices do actually involve orgasm but
    cannot result in pregnancy.
    
    So I suppose "any common definition" really means "any definition that
    fits the needs of Jim Percival's agenda."

    Anal sex is used as the most common method of birth control in eastern
    Africa. Primary reason for the completely out of control spread of AIDS
    over there.

re: .313
 
>	But Steve, your argument against equal rights for Gays was that
>	they can not be visibly identified. Either your argument has
>	no merit, or the same logic should be applied to Christians
>	(or any other religious belief).

    Not at all.  This portion of the argument had to do with viewing gays
    as somewhat of an official minority with regards to the law.  My basic
    argument regarding gay marriages is that legal force a redefinition of
    the institution of marriage, as well as the legal definition of family.  
    You are legally forcing a morality adjustment on the states.
    
    Trying to compare this with religion (protected by the First) is
    apples and oranges, as religion is deemed valuable to society- even
    necessary to the Constitution.  If you can make an argument that
    homosexuality is worthy of special protection due to its inherant
    value, then such a comparison may be of use in this discussion.
 
>	First you would have to define, even prove, a potential for harm
>	regarding the issue under discussion. Then you might have a case.
	
    It is a moral step backwards in the eyes of most citizens.  However,
    it is up to you to prove the value of homosexuality, and why it is
    worthy of special attention (changing the very definition of marriage
    for a lifestyle that is deviant from the norm of society, is definitely
    getting special protection/attention under the law).
    
>	The laws said blacks can't marry whites. No individual was named
>	in the law. It was an entire class of people. EXACTLY the same
>	case as we have today with Gays.

    Only if you view sexual preference as a way to legally identify a
    minority.  It is NOT exactly the same thing, as the basic definition of
    marriage itself was not altered previously.  If I were a minority, I
    might take a bit of offense at your equating race with a lifestyle that 
    is not normal.

>	So you tell me that a SCOTUS decision from 1889 (a time when 
>	inter-racial marriage WAS outlawed) backs up your argument 
>	that bans on inter-racial marriages and Gay marriages are
>	"different". Somehow that doesn't make very much sense,
>	does it?

    You are the only one who is bringing up the inter-racial argument.  The
    1889 ruling clearly defines what marriage is intended to be.  This
    ruling does not even mention race, so your complaints of my use of this
    ruling are baseless- especially since the 14th Amendment, which is the
    basis of your own argument, had been passed years previously to this 
    ruling.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .322
    
> 	The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing
>	and the use of public accomodations for specific reasons. The law
>	was passed by Congress in 1964 and has been amended (adding more
>	reasons) since. Current list as I understand it is, Race, color,
>	national origin, gender, age, religion or handicap.

    If you added sexual orientation, you would not bolster your argument
    around changing the definition of marriage.
    
>	Therefore, in a discussion concerning the Civil Rights Act a reference
>	to AA is in error. They are two very seperate laws, with two very
>	seperate goals.

    And bringing up the Civil Rights Act at all, within the context of this
    discussion, is meaningless, as it deals with employment, housing and
    use of public accomodations.  In fact, the Civil Rights Act was adopted
    AFTER the ban on inter-racial marriages was done away with (at least in
    most states), if memory serves, which would make this whole 
    argument/comparison quite disengenuous with regards to marriage laws.
    
    What you are left with, is the interpretation of the 14th.  What was the
    intent of it?  It was designed so that all *races* of US citizens were
    deemed equal under the law, not all lifestyles.  Equal treatment does
    not mean equal acceptance of all alternative lifestyles.  To argue this
    extreme interpretation is most certainly reading into the 14th
    Amendment something that simply is not there- nor intended to be there.
    
    
    -steve  

    re: .321
    
>    So who besides gays is excluded??
    
    Heterosexuals.

    Steve, please explain how same sex marriages will cheapen, demean, or
    otherwise impact hetero marriages.  How will two men or two women
    exchanging vows of life long commitment to one another have an impact
    on a man and woman doing the same?
    
    Brian

    >Steve, please explain how same sex marriages will cheapen, demean, or
    >otherwise impact hetero marriages.
    
    It will insult their "moral" sensibilities. Honest it will!   :)
    
    ..Tom

        >Steve, please explain how same sex marriages will cheapen, demean, or
    >otherwise impact hetero marriages.

    with all the extra harassment of homosexuals that would need
    doing, who would have time for their own marriage ?!?!

    -b

    <<< Note 155.343 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    I mentioned AA as a problem with the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act.  
>    I believe that this is a valid statement because if we did not have the 
>    Civil Rights Act, I strongly suspect that AA would never have existed.

	A plausible theory, but certainly not the fault of the CRA.

>    The problem that I have with the CRA is that it lists out characteristics. 
>    I would much prefer something along the lines of no discrimination against 
>    anyone, or preferential treatment for anyone.

	In principle I would mostly agree with you. But then you run into
	the problem that there ARE some people who can legitimately be
	dicsriminated against (felons out on parole, for example). That's
	where all inclusive language becomes tricky. If you look at the
	wording (and intention) of the Act is tries to be inclusive. It
	says no discrimination based on race (which contradicts AA actually)
	or gender without specifying WHICH race or gender.

>  The listing out of 
>    characteristics is the first step in creating a caste (sp) system in 
>    which we wind up with preferred groups. 

	I agree that there is a problem with execution, but the actual wording
	isn't bad given the original goal of having people treated equally.

Jim

     <<< Note 155.345 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

    
>    So I suppose "any common definition" really means "any definition that
>    fits the needs of Jim Percival's agenda."

	So then you do want to add reading, cold showers and long lonely drives 
	to the list?

Jim

    
    > But then you run into
    > the problem that there ARE some people who can legitimately be
    > dicsriminated against (felons out on parole, for example).
    
    Not to start a fight, but what discrimination are you in favor of for
    say, felons on parole....?
    
    Dan

             <<< Note 155.347 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    Not at all.  This portion of the argument had to do with viewing gays
>    as somewhat of an official minority with regards to the law.

	Your argument keeps expanding to explain the failing of your
	previous argument.

>    You are legally forcing a morality adjustment on the states.
 
	Again, the issue of morality must be brought to bear. Without it
	you have no foundation for the rest of your argument.

   
>    It is a moral step backwards in the eyes of most citizens. 

	But even you and Joe have agreed that Gays can do whatever
	they want, in any way the want, with whomever they want.
	The only thing you are denying them on this "moral" basis
	is a piece of paper that recognizes that they are doing 
	all these things.

	How can this be an argument for immorality, if even YOU
	are willing to accept that Gays should be allowed to
	practice an "immoral" lifestyle. This appears to be
	the ultimate hypocrisy.

> However,
>    it is up to you to prove the value of homosexuality, and why it is
>    worthy of special attention (changing the very definition of marriage
>    for a lifestyle that is deviant from the norm of society, is definitely
>    getting special protection/attention under the law).
 
	Again the "special rights" argument. Special because they are
	denied these rights today. Rights that ALL hets currently 
	have. 

	The law of the land states quite clearly that all citizens must be
	treated equally by the government. I think the burden is on you
	to prove that Gays should not. A burden that you obviously can 
	not meet.

>    Only if you view sexual preference as a way to legally identify a
>    minority.  It is NOT exactly the same thing, as the basic definition of
>    marriage itself was not altered previously.  If I were a minority, I
>    might take a bit of offense at your equating race with a lifestyle that 
>    is not normal.

	Steve you miss the point. The BASIC definition in those states
	at that time was that marriage occurred ONLY between members
	of the same race. THAT was the point of the law. IF the States
	have the right to determine their own basic definition of what
	marriage is for their society (your basic argument) then you HAVE
	to agree that they had the right to prohibit such marriages. If
	you beleive that such prohibitions were wrong, then you HAVE to 
	accept that the States do NOT have a right to prohibit same-sex
	marriages any more than they had the right to prohibit different
	race marriages. You can not have your cake and eat it too.

Jim

             <<< Note 155.348 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    If you added sexual orientation, you would not bolster your argument
>    around changing the definition of marriage.
 
	Never said it would. there are a number of argument strings
	occuring here.

>    What you are left with, is the interpretation of the 14th.  What was the
>    intent of it?  It was designed so that all *races* of US citizens were
>    deemed equal under the law, not all lifestyles. 

	I have checked my pocket copy of the Constitution. Perhaps they
	edited the document so that it woould fit in this handy little
	size. Could you point me to YOUR copy of the Constitution
	wherein the 14th Amendment contains the word" race"?

Jim

    <<< Note 155.355 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    Not to start a fight, but what discrimination are you in favor of for
>    say, felons on parole....?
 
	A very differnt rathole, let's keep it short.

	There are a whole list of rules that they must follow that you and
	I are not subject to. Weekly checkins, drug testing, limits on
	freedom of association, restrictions on travel and so on.

	This certainly singles them out for very different restrctions than
	are plced on "regular" citizens.

Jim

    
    >Anal sex is used as the most common method of birth control in eastern
    >Africa. Primary reason for the completely out of control spread of AIDS
    >over there.
    
    Small nit, one reason for the extensive practice of heterosexual anal
    intercourse is infibulation, or the practice of removing the clitoris
    and labia, scraping the skin of the vagina and stitching it so the
    vaginal opening will never accomodate "normal" vaginal sex comfortably
    for the woman.  Add to this the heavy use of prostitutes who haven't
    been mutilated in this fashion, and you do have a set up for large
    numbers of STD's to be transmitted.
    
    meg
    
    Joe,
    
    As both Jim and I are part of society, even part of the society here at
    "ground zero" I think you need to adapt your words to "Some members of
    Society think x", rather than saying that this member of society also
    believes the same way you and the Rainbow Warrior do.
    
    meg

    Yes, there's that too. I never heard of the word "infibulation"
    before...it was always "lightly" referred to as "female circumcision"
    when I heard it. Made to remove all pleasure from sexual activity for
    women so they won't get itchy and go running off somewhere else for it.
    
    Question for anyone who chooses to answer:
    If such practices existed in the native americans of the U.S., would
    you interfere on the grounds that the women were being oppressed, or
    let them continue on the grounds that it is not your place to interfere
    with another culture?

    re: .332
    
    glen,
    
    i wasn't trying to argue any point in .238... it was merely
    a question. i don't know what the percentage of heterosexuals
    who marry to obtain insurance coverage is, but i would guess
    it's low.
    
    does the health insurance offered by various employers to
    their employees' families cover pre-existing conditions?
    my experience is that it does, but until i become "self-
    employed" i worked for fairly large companies which usually
    had group plans. so i have no idea what the "normal case"
    is.
    
    -b

    ritual mutilation of body parts IMNSHO is something that needs to be
    removed from cultures.  

    <<< Note 155.362 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    ritual mutilation of body parts IMNSHO is something that needs to be
>    removed from cultures.  

Meg,	This could make for a fun topic.
	
	Do you consider driving a nail through one's earlobe in order
	to hand items from it to be ritual mutilation?

Jim

    Since it was suggested...
    
    new topic @ 507.*
    
    "Interference in other cultures"

    
    .365,
    
    Awww, take it to the "Interference in other cultures ritual bodily
    mutilation nose piercing" topic!!!
    
    :^)
    

>    ritual mutilation of body parts IMNSHO is something that needs to be
>    removed from cultures.  

There are those so bold as to suggest that male circumcision should be made
illegal, and that Jews should be prevented from obeying God.

/john

    There are those so bold as to suggest that male circumcision should be
    made illegal, and that Jews should stop using god as an excuse for
    force upon an innocent child.
    
    
    ...Tom

    
    re: .369
    
    >There are those so bold
    
    yeah.... maybe they can help Martin Sheen throw some blood on the Enola
    Gay in D.C. too!!
    

	So, is Ralston's suggestion

		stupid

		anti-Semitic

	or both?

    
      Yes, it is certainly anti-semitic.  He just said so.
    
      bb

    >yeah.... maybe they can help Martin Sheen throw some blood on the Enola
    >Gay in D.C. too!!
    
    You and John C. must be friends. John uses non sequiturs like 
    anti-semitic and you compare me to a blood thrower. Intelligence sees
    through such antics. The fact is that both of you think that it is
    perfectly proper to force your beliefs on an unsuspecting child who is
    incapable of rejecting your advances. You use a so called "loving" god
    as the excuse. Non seguiturs are not needed, except maybe to hide this
    fact.
    
    ..Tom

Tom, is it improper to force your belief in the germ theory of disease on
some poor "unsuspecting child who is incapable of rejecting your advances?"

	why not take this to 507??

    
    re: .373
    
    Wrong!!
    
     I've only seen John from a distance and that in dim light to boot...
    
    He's not really my friend, but might possibly be should the opportunity
    arise...
    
     re: anti-semitic
    
      Actually I could care less about what God said to the Jews about
    circumcision... if they want to do it that's fine...
    
     My main concern is the medical one, and I've already expressed my
    views and experiences thank you very much...
    
      >rejecting your advances??????
    
      Oh what a lovely PC term that is!!! 
    
    
      You know what? My son's 21 years old... do you know what he still
    remembers today (subconsciously)???? When he was a few months old, he
    needed surgery to relieve pressure on his eye caused by congenital
    glaucoma... and subsequent 10-12 operations... (all within his first
    year of birth)...
    
      This has nothing to do with "forced" or needed surgery or whatever...
    
     It's what he remembers!!!  He doesn't remember his circumcision, he
    remembers the other operations..
    
     I know.. I know what's coming... "Just because he can't remember,
    doesn't make it right..."
    
     Save it...
    

    Meg,
    
    We had a case here in Atlanta a year or two ago; apparently doctors
    won't perform female circumcision here in the States (thank God).
    A woman was fighting her husband and her *own* family who was insisting
    that she bring her young daughter back to Africa so the ritual could
    be performed there.  I can't remember which country is was, but it
    was a cultural thing; the thinking is that if a woman doesn't enjoy
    sexual pleasure, she will remain faithful to her husband.
    
    It hit the courts because the woman wasn't a citizen as yet; I think
    the daughter was a citizen and the court took steps to protect the
    child.  I remember in the TV interview the woman still worrying be-
    cause she was afraid her husband would sneak the child back to
    Africa.  The woman also had affidavits from OB/GYN doctors who said
    women who have this performed on them also have unusually frequent
    cases of bladder/kidney infections as well as other type infections.
             
    

    Just because he can't remember doesn't make it right.   :)
    
    It is interesting that my original comment, concerning the outlawing of
    mutilations, was in response to the forced surgery being performed on
    young women, removing their clitoris' and partially closing their
    vaginas, so that the enjoyment of sex was removed. It would be
    difficult for me to believe that anyone would condone this type of
    forceful attack. But as usual in SOAPBOX someone causes a change in
    direction and then attacks. Every instance of this type, circumcision
    for example, should be discussed/debated on its own individual
    merit. Personally I think it wrong to subject children to procedures that
    may affect future performance of any kind. Surgery to correct defects,
    or to save the childs life is of course acceptable, as well as as well
    as treatments to eliminate illness. But, SOAPBOX is SOAPBOX and I enjoy 
    being here or I wouldn't be proud to proclaim.....
    
    	I AM A BOXER AND PROUD OF IT!!
    
    Thank you (yes, I'm a sicko)
    
    ...Tom

    	re .341
    
    	I disagree with practically everything you've said there.
    
    	We've been through it all before.  I will not repeat them.
    
    	If having the last word is what's important to you, then
    	you've got it.

    <<< Note 155.342 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>>    	All the things you listed (that state-sanctioned marriage can
>>    	provide) were legal or financial.  That was my point.
>
>	"Love" is a legal or financial reason?
    
    	Note what is in the parentheses above.  You are correct, but
    	it is not a reason that state-sanctioned marriage can provide.

>	Tell me Joe, why do you think that Hets want to get married?
>	Make a list. Then scratch out "Het" write in "Gay". You'll pretty
>	much have the answer to your own question.

    	Hets want state-sanctioned marriage for these same reasons.
    	(Some hets DON'T want marriage for these same reasons!)  My
    	point on this matter is that state-sanctioned benefits are
    	very limited, and to argue that love has anything to do with
    	that saction is misleading at best, and maybe even dishonest.

    >If having the last word is what's important to you, then you've got it.
    
    Where do you come up with this stuff. Add this to I'm stupid,
    Anti-Semetic and a blood thrower and you will be totally recognized as
    to the crowd you run with.
    
    ...Tom

    	re .354
    
    	Jim.  See .196.

    <<< Note 155.359 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
    
>    Joe,
>    
>    As both Jim and I are part of society, even part of the society here at
>    "ground zero" I think you need to adapt your words to "Some members of
>    Society think x", rather than saying that this member of society also
>    believes the same way you and the Rainbow Warrior do.

    	No I don't, for I am speaking of society as a single entity.
    	We are all individuals of that entity, and surely I agre with
    	you that there's a diversity of opinions and beliefs among those
    	individuals.  That's not the point, though.  At least not the
    	point to me.  BEyond this, it is a matter of semantics, and
    	I'm not sure that a debate about that is fruitful.  You now
    	know what I mean, so translate it to whatever semantics will
    	make sense to you.

| <<< Note 155.338 by SNOFS1::DAVISM "Happy Harry Hard On" >>>


| Stop moaning ya big queen!


	HEY Martin!!! I remeble thar remark.... :-)

| <<< Note 155.340 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| All the things you listed (that state-sanctioned marriage can
| provide) were legal or financial.  That was my point.

	Selective reading again Joe? God forbid you should have mentioned the
love part of it.... even though I did...... 



Glen

| <<< Note 155.344 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| If you are being fired, or have been fired, I assure you that you are
| not going ANYWHERE in that position.  Therefore B) would ALWAYS be true.

	Why didn't the crackerbarrel people think that way Dan? 

| > c ...would be lying.

| Only if you are careless with your wording, which near as I can tell no
| one in this 'box is... :-)

	<grin>..... now seriously.... if you have to be careful with your
wording, aren't you doing so to hide something? No very good if that is the
case Dan. If it isn't the case, why else would you have to try and play a word
game?

| > 	This is where you lose it. You can prevent it from happening in a lot
| > of cases. While a law for murder does not stop everyone, I bet it does stop a
| > lot of people. AND, when there is a law in place, it does allow you to be in
| > complete control of being fired for reasons other than job performance.

| Interesting, but wrong.

	Ahhh...... suppose you could tell me why it is wrong? I mean, your lack
of reasons makes your statement look pretty weak.

| Nearly all of the notes of your's that I have read in this, the gay issues 
| topic, etc. are of the vein... "Oh things are so terrible for gays because of...."  
| That to me sounds like someone who enjoys being a victim.

	So... if someone states facts about anything, they are just victims,
regardless of whether it has happened to them or not? And if someone would like
to push for something to prevent these things from happening, they are still a
victim? Wow Dan.... you are a piece of work....

| >     Wow..... I hope they come take your job away. I want to never hear you
| >     got upset over it at all. That you just shrugged your shoulders and moved
| >     on....

| Been there, done that.....

	I bet ya lost a few jobs.....


Glen

| <<< Note 155.347 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>



| Trying to compare this with religion (protected by the First) is
| apples and oranges, 

	Not according to Dan's plan.... :-)

| <<< Note 155.379 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| I disagree with practically everything you've said there.

	Who would have thought.....

| We've been through it all before.  I will not repeat them.

	That's cuz you lost then, like you would now....



Glen

| <<< Note 155.380 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| Hets want state-sanctioned marriage for these same reasons. (Some hets DON'T 
| want marriage for these same reasons!) My point on this matter is that 
| state-sanctioned benefits are very limited, and to argue that love has 
| anything to do with that saction is misleading at best, and maybe even 
| dishonest.

	Oh come on Joe.... the only reason you even brought up the state crap
was so you could do away with the love part of it. It makes it easier to deal
with that way.


Glen

          <<< Note 155.379 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	I disagree with practically everything you've said there.
 
	An interesting way to dodge the argument, even got one last dig
	in. Clever.

Jim

                  <<< Note 155.384 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	HEY Martin!!! I remeble thar remark.... :-)

	When did you start mumbling? ;-)

Jim

                  <<< Note 155.385 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Selective reading again Joe? God forbid you should have mentioned the
> love part of it.... even though I did...... 

    	Selective reading, Glen?  I already correctly dismissed "the
    	love part of it" as something that the state cannot provide
    	to (or take from) the couple.
    
.390>	Oh come on Joe.... the only reason you even brought up the state crap
> was so you could do away with the love part of it. It makes it easier to deal
> with that way.

    	"DO away with the love part of it"?  How can I do that!
    
    	No, what I'm doing is pointing out that love is neither
    	granted or denied by the state, and to use it as an
    	argument to show what gays are missing by not having
    	state-sanctioned marriage is flat-out wrong.
    
    	"The state crap" is PRECISELY what same-sex marriage is
    	all about, for that is all that gays are missing here.

          <<< Note 155.383 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	No I don't, for I am speaking of society as a single entity.

	And YOU get to define the makeup of that entity?

	Who the  <ro> gave YOU the right to make such determinations?	

	It's a lot more than "just semantics" you sanctimonious horse's..
	nevermind.

Jim

| <<< Note 155.391 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

| >    	I disagree with practically everything you've said there.

| An interesting way to dodge the argument, even got one last dig in. Clever.


	Jim.... I'd call it typical.... :-)

| <<< Note 155.392 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

| >	HEY Martin!!! I remeble thar remark.... :-)

| When did you start mumbling? ;-)

	When I stopped looking at the keys I am hitting.... :-)

| <<< Note 155.393 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Selective reading, Glen?  I already correctly dismissed "the love part of it"

	Of course you did. By doing so makes it easier for you to justify to
others that we don't need it. It ain't gonna work. 

| "DO away with the love part of it"?  How can I do that!

	By dismissing it.

| "The state crap" is PRECISELY what same-sex marriage is all about, for that 
| is all that gays are missing here.

	Joe, no one denies that will be "it" for some, but not all. But you
want to apply it to all cuz it helps you justify to others how wrong it is. But
like I said, it ain't gonna work.



Glen

| <<< Note 155.394 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

| And YOU get to define the makeup of that entity?
| Who the  <ro> gave YOU the right to make such determinations?

	Jim, maybe he thinks he is God????? He does have that absolute morality
thang ya know.


Glen

    Glen-
    
    You aren't going to like this, but from a non-emotive point of view,
    Joe is correct.  State sanctioned marriage does not give gay people
    the right to love each other.  You either do or you don't, but having
    the state sanction it does nothing to make it happen.

    Dudley Dogood snarf!

    
    Glen, try using 

    extract/append 

    That way we don't have to wade through 99 bazillion notes by you....

    ----

    re: .386

    This is where you are wrong:

>   You can prevent it from happening in a lot of cases.

    This is completely unsubstantiated.  In fact there is no way to prove
    this kind of statement.

    > when there is a law in place, it does allow you to be in complete 
    > control of being fired for reasons other than job performance.

    Oh really, HOW do you figure that?  The MOST it allows you to do is to
    take the company to court.  THAT DOES NOT "allow you to be in complete 
    control of being fired for reasons other than job performance."

> | Nearly all of the notes of your's that I have read in this, the gay issues 
> | topic, etc. are of the vein... "Oh things are so terrible for gays because of...."  
> | That to me sounds like someone who enjoys being a victim.
> 
> 	So... if someone states facts about anything, they are just victims,
> regardless of whether it has happened to them or not? And if someone would like
> to push for something to prevent these things from happening, they are still a
> victim? Wow Dan.... you are a piece of work....

    No Glen, you are not always stating facts, most of the time you are
    just whining.

> | >     Wow..... I hope they come take your job away. I want to never hear you
> | >     got upset over it at all. That you just shrugged your shoulders and moved
> | >     on....
> 
> | Been there, done that.....
> 
> I bet ya lost a few jobs.....

    And the point of this statement was.....

    re:.387

> | <<< Note 155.347 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>
> 
> | Trying to compare this with religion (protected by the First) is
> | apples and oranges, 
> 
> Not according to Dan's plan.... :-)

    How do you figure that?

    Dan

    >Dudley Dogood snarf!
    
    Isn't that Dudley Doright?? Who is Dudley Dogood?
    
    ...Tom

| <<< Note 155.399 by POWDML::CKELLY "The Proverbial Bad Penny" >>>


| You aren't going to like this, but from a non-emotive point of view, Joe is 
| correct. State sanctioned marriage does not give gay people the right to love 
| each other. You either do or you don't, but having the state sanction it does 
| nothing to make it happen.

	Maybe we're looking at it from two different views 'tine. I agree with
what you are saying above. Love comes from within, not from marriage. But if
one does get married, whether gay or straight, love should be present. Taking
love out of the picture, can make it easy to justify not granting marriages to
gays. That was the point I was making. 


Glen

| <<< Note 155.401 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

| Glen, try using
| extract/append
| That way we don't have to wade through 99 bazillion notes by you....

	Sorry.... gotta keep them under 100 lines..... :-)  Of course if you
don't want to read so many, just hit next unseen. 

| >   You can prevent it from happening in a lot of cases.

| This is completely unsubstantiated.  In fact there is no way to prove
| this kind of statement.

	Does any law prevent someone from doing something Dan? If they don't,
then lets do away with every single law on the books. What do ya say, Dan?

| Oh really, HOW do you figure that?  The MOST it allows you to do is to take 
| the company to court. THAT DOES NOT "allow you to be in complete control of 
| being fired for reasons other than job performance."

	Too many companies wouldn't go to court. They would rectify the problem
beforehand. The ones that did go to court, would have a good chance of losing.
It's happening all the time now Dan. Companies don't want the government in
their business, and try to avoid it. 

| > 	So... if someone states facts about anything, they are just victims,
| > regardless of whether it has happened to them or not? And if someone would like
| > to push for something to prevent these things from happening, they are still a
| > victim? Wow Dan.... you are a piece of work....

| No Glen, you are not always stating facts, most of the time you are just 
| whining.

	Ahhhhh..... lovely statement..... but of course you provide no proof.
What's the matter Dan, couldn't find any? Your above statement is really funny.

| > | Trying to compare this with religion (protected by the First) is
| > | apples and oranges,
| >
| > Not according to Dan's plan.... :-)

| How do you figure that?

	Cuz you wanna do away with the governements role with protection laws.
That would do away with religion being protected by the 1st.


Glen

    well glen, maybe i didn't understand what you and joe were discussing,
    but i thought it was 'what does state-sactioned marriages give gays'
    along with 'what do gay people want from state-sactioned marriages' and
    love wouldn't be the answer for straight or gay.  one may be able to
    say it is a way of publically declaring the depth of feeling for your
    partner, but it doesn't give the emotion.  and we both know many
    straight people marry for various reasons and you and i may think it
    should always be for love, but that seems to be a bit of a naive view.
    I'm sure the same reasons for marriage, one way or another, would be
    there in same sex marriages as well.  So, what is all this saying? 
    Just simply that gay people seem to have the same good/bad reasons for
    wanting to marry as non-gay people.  I just needed to pick that nit
    about love :-)

    
    re:.404

> | Oh really, HOW do you figure that?  The MOST it allows you to do is to take 
> | the company to court. THAT DOES NOT "allow you to be in complete control of 
> | being fired for reasons other than job performance."
> 
> 	Too many companies wouldn't go to court. They would rectify the problem
> beforehand. The ones that did go to court, would have a good chance of losing.
> It's happening all the time now Dan. Companies don't want the government in
> their business, and try to avoid it. 

    Glen, this is horse hockey.  What will wind up happening is the
    companies will wind up keeping the slag who are member of a protected
    group so that they will not be sued.  The only people who will go will
    be the slag that are not members of the protected groups, and non-slags
    who are not members of the protected groups.  These are the facts of
    life.  What you are proposing would be just to increase the number of
    protected groups.  How does this help anyone?  It doesn't  companies
    will wind up with more slag that they don't dare let go for fear of
    lawsuits.  The end result will be more small companies going belly up,
    and the larger ones leaving the country.  Quite an accomplishment I
    must say.

    > Cuz you wanna do away with the governements role with protection laws.
    > That would do away with religion being protected by the 1st.

    Quite a leap of logic there, government out of telling companies how to
    operate, to no protection of religions.... yeah I can see that....

    Dan

| <<< Note 155.405 by POWDML::CKELLY "The Proverbial Bad Penny" >>>

| well glen, maybe i didn't understand what you and joe were discussing, but i 
| thought it was 'what does state-sactioned marriages give gays' along with 
| 'what do gay people want from state-sactioned marriages' and love wouldn't be 
| the answer for straight or gay.  

	This is what Joe wants to discuss. And as I stated, by taking the love
out of it, it's easier to try and push for no same sex marriage. This is not
something I am willing to let him do. 

| one may be able to say it is a way of publically declaring the depth of 
| feeling for your partner, but it doesn't give the emotion.  

	In here???? You're certainly correct about that! :-)  But between the 2
people? It is full of emotion. And between the 2 people is where it should be
coming from. 

| and we both know many straight people marry for various reasons and you and i 
| may think it should always be for love, but that seems to be a bit of a naive 
| view.

	I agree, and have stated that there are many reasons why one would get
married. From love all the way down to getting married to gain tax breaks. That
falls for straight and gay. But that was back in note .340 I believe.

| I'm sure the same reasons for marriage, one way or another, would be there in 
| same sex marriages as well. So, what is all this saying? Just simply that gay 
| people seem to have the same good/bad reasons for wanting to marry as non-gay 
| people.  

	When Joe origionally asked me the question (.340 references the note
his question came from), he said he wouldn't accept the answer, "the same as
straight people". I wonder if he will accept it from you? :-)

| I just needed to pick that nit about love :-)

	I hear ya! :-)  Besides, I don't think you're nitting. Just pointing
out your views. 



Glen

| <<< Note 155.406 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| Glen, this is horse hockey. What will wind up happening is the companies will 
| wind up keeping the slag who are member of a protected group so that they will
| not be sued.  

	What you are talking about is something totally different. We're
talking about those who are fired for reasons other than their job performance.
Try to stick with it, will ya?

| What you are proposing would be just to increase the number of protected 
| groups.  

	Can you find any group that is on the list now that should not be
there?

| How does this help anyone?  It doesn't. Companies will wind up with more slag 
| that they don't dare let go for fear of lawsuits.  

	Funny how you keep reverting to slags when we're discussing people
fired for reasons other than their job performance. What's the matter Dan,
can't you show how wrong I am by sticking to the subject, instead of trying to
divert to a whole different issue? 

| The end result will be more small companies going belly up,

	Dan, can you give me a list of these smaller companies who have gone
belly up? I mean, groups have been protected now for quite some time. I'm sure
seeing you stated what WILL happen, that it must have already happened. So
please give us a list of companies. Thanks.

| and the larger ones leaving the country.  

	Again, please give us a list of companies that this has happened to,
Dan. Surely there is a large list for all the years that groups have been
protected. 

| Quite an accomplishment I must say.

	Quite a bit of hysteria from you I must say.

| Quite a leap of logic there, government out of telling companies how to
| operate, to no protection of religions.... yeah I can see that....

	Governement wouldn't even be involved. All laws for protection would be
gone under your plan. We could fire people due to color, race, gender, sexual
orientation, blonde hair, nationality, anything. Luv that plan.....


Glen

	Dan, from note .404, you never answered these 2 parts. Could you now?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glen: You can prevent it from happening in a lot of cases.

Dan : This is completely unsubstantiated. In fact there is no way to prove this 
      kind of statement.

Glen: Does any law prevent someone from doing something Dan? If they don't, then
      lets do away with every single law on the books. What do ya say, Dan?





Glen: So... if someone states facts about anything, they are just victims,
      regardless of whether it has happened to them or not? And if someone 
      would like to push for something to prevent these things from happening, 
      they are still a victim? Wow Dan.... you are a piece of work....

Dan : No Glen, you are not always stating facts, most of the time you are just 
      whining.

Glen: Ahhhhh..... lovely statement..... but of course you provide no proof. 
      What's the matter Dan, couldn't find any? Your above statement is really 
      funny.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    >| Glen, this is horse hockey. What will wind up happening is the
    >companies will
    >| wind up keeping the slag who are member of a protected
    >group so that they will
    >| not be sued.
    >
    >What you are talking about is something totally different. We're
    >talking about those who are fired for reasons other than their job
    >performance. Try to stick with it, will ya?
    
    I see this as a direct result of making a law against firing people for
    reasons other than performance. If there is such a law, the bosses will
    be reluctant to fire members of protected groups. The members of said
    groups could easily sue, claiming that they were fired for
    non-performance related reasons.
    
    
    
    >| What you are proposing would be just to increase the number of
    >protected
    >| groups.
    >
    >Can you find any group that is on the list now that should not be
    >there?
    
    I can. ALL GROUPS LISTED. For reasons, see above. I should be just as
    likely to be fired (or not hired) for being white as someone else
    should be for being of a different skin color. Unfortunately, it
    doesn't work that way now. Many groups that insist they do not
    discriminate continue to do so openly.

    <<< Note 155.394 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>>    	No I don't, for I am speaking of society as a single entity.
>
>	And YOU get to define the makeup of that entity?
    
    	For the purposes of my own argument I get to define that 
    	society is a single entity.  Why not?  Why does that make
    	you so upset that I want to make clear what I am talking
    	about?  I do not get to define the contents of that entity,
    	and, in fact, my argument basically says to allow the
    	individuals who are the makeup of that entity to define
    	what the entity stands for.

>	Who the  <ro> gave YOU the right to make such determinations?	
>
>	It's a lot more than "just semantics" you sanctimonious horse's..
>	nevermind.
    
    	Drop the childishness, Jim.  This stuff is beginning to define
    	YOU!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

                  <<< Note 155.397 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Of course you did. By doing so makes it easier for you to justify to
> others that we don't need it. It ain't gonna work. 
    
    	I never said that anyone doesn't need it.  (Love)  What I've
    	said is that the state can't provide or deny it.  All the state
    	can affect is legal and financial costs/benefits to marriage,
    	and that is about all that gays can be looking for from the
    	state.  Do you know of something else that that gays can get
    	from the state if the state recognizes and sanctions their
    	marriages?  (I've asked this before, of course, so I really
    	don't expect a different answeer from you...)
    

                  <<< Note 155.407 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	This is what Joe wants to discuss. 
    
    	What you are discussing is ***NOT*** what I am discussing.
    	Tine got it right, and I really don't see that she has said
    	anything different from what I've said, so I don't understand
    	why you can understand her and not me.  (Unless you are wearing
    	your bash-Joe filter again...)
    
    	Regardless, I'll just address your single statement above
    	with a taste of your own medicine:
    
    
    	Why don't you ASK instead of telling!

    
    re:.408

> | Glen, this is horse hockey. What will wind up happening is the companies will 
> | wind up keeping the slag who are member of a protected group so that they will
> | not be sued.  
> 
> 	What you are talking about is something totally different. We're
> talking about those who are fired for reasons other than their job performance.
> Try to stick with it, will ya?

    See comments in .410  OBTW I am on the same subject.

> | What you are proposing would be just to increase the number of protected 
> | groups.  
> 
> Can you find any group that is on the list now that should not be there?

    All of them.  Please see my note to Jim back a few.  If you have
    further questions, then ask me.

> | How does this help anyone?  It doesn't. Companies will wind up with more slag 
> | that they don't dare let go for fear of lawsuits.  
> 
> 	Funny how you keep reverting to slags when we're discussing people
> fired for reasons other than their job performance. What's the matter Dan,
> can't you show how wrong I am by sticking to the subject, instead of trying to
> divert to a whole different issue? 

    Glen, that is the subject.  The point is, your proposal will create
    protected groups who will have a ready excuse to sue.  Their claim
    would be that they were fired for non-performance related reasons. 
    This could be a complete lie, but the company would have to fight it
    through the courts, and there by rack up all sorts of court costs. 
    This means that a company would be more likely not to fire a member of
    a protected group regardless of their job performance.

> | The end result will be more small companies going belly up,
> 
> Dan, can you give me a list of these smaller companies who have gone belly up?

    Be glad to however, the smaller ones would not be well enough know for
    me to quote them. However....

> | and the larger ones leaving the country.  
> 
> Again, please give us a list of companies that this has happened to,
> Dan. Surely there is a large list for all the years that groups have been
> protected. 

    GE, GM, FORD, GTE, Crysler, etc...

> | Quite a leap of logic there, government out of telling companies how to
> | operate, to no protection of religions.... yeah I can see that....
> 
> Governement wouldn't even be involved. All laws for protection would be
> gone under your plan. We could fire people due to color, race, gender, sexual
> orientation, blonde hair, nationality, anything. Luv that plan.....

    Quite a bit of hysteria from you I must say.

    ---------

Glen: You can prevent it from happening in a lot of cases.

Dan : This is completely unsubstantiated. In fact there is no way to prove this 
      kind of statement.

Glen: Does any law prevent someone from doing something Dan? If they don't, then
      lets do away with every single law on the books. What do ya say, Dan?

    Excuse me, I assumed it was a rhetorical question.  I felt any question
    that asinine had to be in jest, my mistake.  I believe that this
    country would be greatly improved by repealing a hugh number of the
    laws that we currently have.  The vast majority of which are either
    unconstitutional, or unenforcable.  If you wish to continue this
    discussion I suggest we take it to the gun control topic.

    ---------

Glen: So... if someone states facts about anything, they are just victims,
      regardless of whether it has happened to them or not? And if someone 
      would like to push for something to prevent these things from happening, 
      they are still a victim? Wow Dan.... you are a piece of work....

Dan : No Glen, you are not always stating facts, most of the time you are just 
      whining.

Glen: Ahhhhh..... lovely statement..... but of course you provide no proof. 
      What's the matter Dan, couldn't find any? Your above statement is really 
      funny.

    Glen, nearly ALL of your notes constitute whining.  You obviously don't
    think so, but then most whiners don't believe that they are whining,
    they are being persecuted.
    
    HTH
    Dan

| <<< Note 155.410 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..." >>>



| I see this as a direct result of making a law against firing people for 
| reasons other than performance. If there is such a law, the bosses will be 
| reluctant to fire members of protected groups. 
	
	If there were a law like the one you described, it would be applied to
all groups. Even the unprotected groups can sue a company if they were fired
for a reason not based on job performance. Heck, some sue even if job
performance comes into play.

| >Can you find any group that is on the list now that should not be
| >there?

| I can. ALL GROUPS LISTED. For reasons, see above. I should be just as likely 
| to be fired (or not hired) for being white as someone else should be for being
| of a different skin color. 

	In a perfect bigoted world, that would apply. But a white person is not
LIKELY to fire someone for being white. The COULD fire someone for being of a
different colour. Different groups could fire people for different reasons.



Glen

| <<< Note 155.412 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| I never said that anyone doesn't need it. (Love)  

	I wasn't talking about love when I said "need it", I was talking
marriage. To try and make the marriage look like it is just a financial way of
doing things, that this has to be what they want to get, makes it easier to
justify that the rules should not change. It also cheapens the marriage all
together. 

| What I've said is that the state can't provide or deny it.  

	I agree with this.

| All the state can affect is legal and financial costs/benefits to marriage,
| and that is about all that gays can be looking for from the state.  

	For some, you are right. For other, you are wrong. It could be a way to
show each other their love towards one another. By making that commitment. Like
I said earlier, there are numerous reasons why anyone gets married. You are
trying to only look at one aspect, and apply it to all. This is why I said it
is not going to work.



Glen

| <<< Note 155.413 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>



| Tine got it right, and I really don't see that she has said anything different
| from what I've said, so I don't understand why you can understand her and not 
| me.  

	'tine is stating what she has seen. I am stating the other obvious
things out there. While you are dismissing it, you haven't proven anything.

| Why don't you ASK instead of telling!

	You already stated your point. My statement said that was what you had
wanted. It was based on your own words. Was there something that I misquoted
you on?


Glen

    .415
    
    I agree with everyhting you said.
    
    I just come to a different conclusion.
    
    Yes, a law applying equally to all groups would not be biased. (Then
    why is there a "list?")
    Even so, I disagree with the concept of such a law - biased or not.
    
    And yes, in this bigoted world, people can get fired for reasons
    related to skin color. I do not believe we should legislate against
    such actions. Reprehensible, yes. Legislation, no.

| <<< Note 155.414 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| > 	What you are talking about is something totally different. We're
| > talking about those who are fired for reasons other than their job performance.
| > Try to stick with it, will ya?

| See comments in .410  OBTW I am on the same subject.

	See my comments a few back on that.

| > Can you find any group that is on the list now that should not be there?

| All of them.  Please see my note to Jim back a few.  If you have
| further questions, then ask me.

	Same as above.

| Glen, that is the subject.  The point is, your proposal will create protected 
| groups who will have a ready excuse to sue.  

	My hope is that you've addressed the companies it has hurt so far. I'll
read on and find out. But I did want to comment that your way allows any and
all people to fire someone due to any reason. 

| Their claim would be that they were fired for non-performance related reasons.

	The way it is now a company could claim that a person was fired for job
related issues, when it could be for a persons colour, race, gender, etc.

| This could be a complete lie, but the company would have to fight it through 
| the courts, and there by rack up all sorts of court costs.

	The company could be completely lying, and the person without a job
would rack up all sorts of court costs.

| This means that a company would be more likely not to fire a member of a 
| protected group regardless of their job performance.

	This means that a company would be more likely not to fire a member of
a protected group for things other than job performance.

	It's a catch 22 Dan, isn't it? With the catch 22, what do you feel
would work the best?

| > Dan, can you give me a list of these smaller companies who have gone belly up?

| Be glad to however, the smaller ones would not be well enough know for
| me to quote them. However....

	So another backless nonfact by Dan. How nice.

| GE, GM, FORD, GTE, Crysler, etc...

	Show me where salaries weren't the factor for these companies leaving
the country, Dan. Costs due to unions and such is what drove these companies
away, isn't it? Are you sure that it is due to "protected groups"? If so,
please explain why it is the manufacturing plants that have been the one mostly
going to other countries......


| Excuse me, I assumed it was a rhetorical question.  I felt any question that 
| asinine had to be in jest, my mistake.  

	Dan, you stated that using a law to show it curbs people from doing
things is unsubstantiated. I asked if this was true, we could do away with all
laws. So please show me where laws don't prevent people from doing things.

| Glen, nearly ALL of your notes constitute whining. You obviously don't think 
| so, but then most whiners don't believe that they are whining, they are being 
| persecuted.

	Then it should be oh so easy to show me examples, which I asked for
earlier. And when did I ever give the impression I was being persecuted? Or was
that just something you threw out for effect?



Glen

| <<< Note 155.418 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..." >>>



| And yes, in this bigoted world, people can get fired for reasons related to 
| skin color. I do not believe we should legislate against such actions. 
| Reprehensible, yes. Legislation, no.

	Murder is reprehensible too. But we do have laws against it. 


Glen

    re:.419

> It's a catch 22 Dan, isn't it? With the catch 22, what do you feel
> would work the best?

    Earth to Glen, I've answered this question for you several times.  
    Are you in write only mode?
    
> | Glen, nearly ALL of your notes constitute whining. You obviously don't think 
> | so, but then most whiners don't believe that they are whining, they are being 
> | persecuted.
> 
> 	Then it should be oh so easy to show me examples, which I asked for
> earlier. And when did I ever give the impression I was being persecuted? Or was
> that just something you threw out for effect?
    
    > | Glen, nearly ALL of your notes constitute whining.
    
    Dan

    
    re: .421
    
    >Earth to Glen, I've answered this question for you several times.
    
    You'll notice this as a consistent pattern... 
    

 We're having real fun now, eh?

    
    
    Yep!!! I'm just getting MY popcorn now!!!
    
    

    .420
    
    >        Murder is reprehensible too. But we do have laws against it.
    
    I draw a line somewhere in between making decisions based on skin color
    and murder.
    
    Where? Much more towards the murder side. (The line in question being
    what we should/should not legislate against.)
    
    My feelings basically boil down to:
    There are many bad things that people can do. It is not up to us
    (us=society, government) to legislate against all of them. Somewhere,
    someone has to draw a line. Who draws the line? Voters, through local &
    state & federal reps. I vote against most new legislation.

    <<< Note 155.414 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

>> Can you find any group that is on the list now that should not be there?

>    All of them.  Please see my note to Jim back a few.  If you have
>    further questions, then ask me.

	Dan, The Civil Rights Act says thqat you can not dicriminate on
	the basis of race, it does not specify any particular race. It
	therefore covers everyone. Same for gender, etc. The law is
	inclusive, not exclusive in nature.

	What do you see as being wrong with this?

Jim

                  <<< Note 155.416 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| What I've said is that the state can't provide or deny it.  
>
>	I agree with this.
    
    	Excellent!  It only took some 100 replies, but I guess it
    	was worth it...

    .426
    
    I don't like it because it gets abused.
    Colleges are required to count the number of minorities admitted to
    ensure compliance with the CRA. It's a catch-22 - the students can't be
    required to report their own race (it's listed as optional) but the
    college must report it.
    For instance, Dartmouth College says that it doesn't discriminate on
    the basis of color - but it has a special Native American weekend where
    any native american interested in attending the college is _flown_ in
    at the college's expense and heavily recruited.
    THAT is discrimination. The college also has segregated housing for
    blacks, asians, and native americans, but not for whites.

    
    Sorry to butt in. Have you seen Al Gore in this Note lately? He seems
    to have escaped another Note and I am looking for him.  Please keep
    me posted if you see him.

    
    I thought I saw him in the Abortion topic, but I may be mistaken.
    

    
    re: .426
    
    Jim,
    The problem that I have with the CRA is that it lists out characteristics. 
    I would much prefer something along the lines of no discrimination against 
    anyone, or preferential treatment for anyone.  The listing out of 
    characteristics is the first step in creating a caste (sp) system in 
    which we wind up with preferred groups.  Allowing certain groups of 
    people preferential treatment based on a characteristic such as race is 
    WRONG !  That is the major gist of all of my notes.  I fail to see where 
    I am wrong in this belief. 
    
    Please educate me.
    
    respectfully,
    Dan

      <<< Note 155.428 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..." >>>


 	Again, I think there is some confusion between the CRA and AA.

	There is no provision in the CRA that addresses percentages.
	There is also no provision for actively recruiting any particular 
	minority. In fact, it does not even address education. All of
	these are provisions of other laws (most likely Title IX) not
	the CRA.

Jim

    <<< Note 155.431 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    The problem that I have with the CRA is that it lists out characteristics. 
	
	But the characteristics, execpting religion for those who have none,
	is all inclusive.

	Let's take the race charachteristic.

	It says no discrimination based on race. That language is clear,
	you can't discriminate against someone who is white, merely because
	he is white, black merely because he is black, asian merely because
	he is asian. Since everyone has a "race" it does what you would like
	to see, it includes EVERYONE.

	The same goes for gender, national origin and so on. THe language
	of the CRA DOES include everyone. The same would be the case if
	they add sexual orientation, it would cover Hets every bit as much
	as it would cover Gays.

Jim

    .432
    Once again, I agree with you.
    However, Dartmouth claims it is not using AA in these programs - that
    it is just trying to mantain compliance with the CRA. And the record
    keeping required by the feds is a part of the CRA.
    
    I agree that abuse of the CRA is difficult since it specifies equal
    protection for all, but like any law with any point of view, someone
    has found a way to abuse it. Guess my beef isn't with the CRA as much
    as with those who use it as a shield to hide behind.

| <<< Note 155.421 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

| > It's a catch 22 Dan, isn't it? With the catch 22, what do you feel
| > would work the best?

| Earth to Glen, I've answered this question for you several times.
| Are you in write only mode?

	Dan, you answered the question alright. I didn't think it was with a
catch 22. So basically your answer is anyone can screw over anyone, and it
should not matter. (for work anyway) But it has to be a one sided screwing, as
in the employer screwing the employee, but never the employee screwing the
employer. REGARDLESS of who is right. Do I have this correct now Dan?

| > | Glen, nearly ALL of your notes constitute whining.

	More non-proof.... how nice.


Glen

    
    > The same goes for gender, national origin and so on. The language
    > of the CRA DOES include everyone.

    So why do we need to add sexual preference?

    I would much prefer something along the lines of no discrimination against 
    anyone, or preferential treatment for anyone.  I am opposed to
    classifying groups of individuals as "xxxxx".  If we do not put general
    categories into the law, we decrease the likelihood for subgroups to
    exist.  These categories and subgroups, in my never humble opinion, lead 
    to castes and divisiveness.  Again, in my never humble opinion,
    divisiveness is possibly the last thing our country needs.

    Dan

| <<< Note 155.425 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..." >>>


| I draw a line somewhere in between making decisions based on skin color
| and murder.

	Ahhh..... now we have the laws based on where you draw the line???? Why
are you able to draw the line, and not someone else?

| There are many bad things that people can do. It is not up to us (us=society, 
| government) to legislate against all of them. 

	I choose to not legislate against murder. Let it happen. That is about
how ridiculous you sound.


Glen
	

    
> So basically your answer is anyone can screw over anyone, and it
> should not matter. (for work anyway) But it has to be a one sided screwing, as
> in the employer screwing the employee, but never the employee screwing the
> employer. REGARDLESS of who is right. Do I have this correct now Dan?

    No Glen, it's two way.  The employer will pay you the absolute minimum
    he can to get the job done.  You (general) will try to get the most you
    possibly can to do the same job.  You (general) are always trying to
    force your profits up, and he is always trying to force costs down.

    Dan
  

| <<< Note 155.438 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| > So basically your answer is anyone can screw over anyone, and it
| > should not matter. (for work anyway) But it has to be a one sided screwing, as
| > in the employer screwing the employee, but never the employee screwing the
| > employer. REGARDLESS of who is right. Do I have this correct now Dan?

| No Glen, it's two way.  The employer will pay you the absolute minimum
| he can to get the job done.  You (general) will try to get the most you
| possibly can to do the same job.  You (general) are always trying to
| force your profits up, and he is always trying to force costs down.

	Dan, we're talking about firing with no recourse. Please stay on track.
Also, do you plan on letting me know if those companies you listed that left
the country due to being subjected to the "protected groups" laws did so for
that reason, and not to save $$$$ on manufacturing????


Glen

    
    .436

    >I would much prefer something along the lines of no discrimination against 
    >anyone, or preferential treatment for anyone.  I am opposed to
    >classifying groups of individuals as "xxxxx".
    
    The point being, however, that the Act lists (or should list) aspects
    of a person that shouldn't have any bearing on thier qualification for
    a job.  Other aspects, such as height, weight, physical fitness,
    criminal record, intellectual ability, education level or even personal
    hygiene can be considered valid reasons for discrimination, depending
    upon the job.  Therefore, they are not listed.
    
    

 see .423

    
    re: .440
    
    John, you are write only aren't you?
    
    >I would much prefer something along the lines of no discrimination against 
    >anyone, or preferential treatment for anyone.  I am opposed to
    >classifying groups of individuals as "xxxxx".
    
    The point being, however, that the Act lists (or should list) aspects
    of a person that shouldn't have any bearing on thier qualification for
    a job.  Other aspects, such as height, weight, physical fitness,
    criminal record, intellectual ability, education level or even personal
    hygiene can be considered valid reasons for discrimination, depending
    upon the job.  Therefore, they are not listed.
    
    >I would much prefer something along the lines of no discrimination against 
    >anyone, or preferential treatment for anyone.
    
    HTH
    Dan

    
    .442
    
    Wotta zinger, Dan.  So, are you saying that you oppose preventing
    convicted pedophiles from working in the child care industry, or
    disallowing seriously overweight people from becoming pilots in a
    fighter jet that they might not be able to safely fit in, or 
    discriminating against a medical student for an internship just 
    because he's getting lousy marks?
    
    Are you arguing just for the sake of argument, Dan?
    

    
    > Are you arguing just for the sake of argument, Dan?

    No John, that accusation fits you or Glen much better than it fits me.

    HTH
    Dan

    
    So you've no answer?
    
    I thought so.
    

    
    > So you've no answer?
    > 
    > I thought so.

    go ahead an take your childish shots if you must, you probably will
    based on your past performance.  I have said my piece.  Presented my
    opinion, and argued your pointless arguments to death.  You and Glen
    are just rehashing old ground.  You can prove nothing.  If you'd like
    I'll just repost my old explanations indefinitely, hoping someday that
    you will read and understand them.  However this will consume lots of
    disk space, so maybe I'll just respond by number.  I'd suggest you
    start around .300 or so and re-read from there.

    HTH
    Dan

| <<< Note 155.444 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| No John, that accusation fits you or Glen much better than it fits me.

	Always the coments, never the proof.....

| <<< Note 155.446 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| go ahead an take your childish shots if you must, you probably will based on 
| your past performance. I have said my piece.  

	But offered no proof.....

| Presented my opinion, 

	Opinion doesn't equal facts. Joan and I are asking you for facts, and
you provide none. Your entire opinion seems to be based on non-facts, which
might be fine for an opinion, but is useless in discussing your opinion as any
sort of fact. 


Glen

    
    .446

    >go ahead an take your childish shots if you must, you probably will
    >based on your past performance.
    
    Dan, go back to .83 to see who set the tone of this conversation.  No
    point in whining about it now.  After you made a pillock of yourself
    in .304, I thought you might take a more subdued approach to the
    discussion.  Obviously, I was wrong.
    
    >I have said my piece.  Presented my
    >opinion, and argued your pointless arguments to death.
    
    Actually, you have NOT addressed my most recent point.  Don't bother
    if you don't want to, but don't try to make it look as though it's
    anything BUT a failing of your position.
    
    jc
    

    
    > So, are you saying that you oppose preventing
    > convicted pedophiles from working in the child care industry, or
    > disallowing seriously overweight people from becoming pilots in a
    > fighter jet that they might not be able to safely fit in, or 
    > discriminating against a medical student for an internship just 
    > because he's getting lousy marks?

    John if you honestly want a response try translating your questions
    into coherent English.

    Dan

    >John if you honestly want a response try translating your questions
    >into coherent English.

    Sorry, there, Dan "Reading-Comprehension" Killoran, but this response
    simply tells me that discussion is not on your agenda today, so I'll
    not waste my time.
    

    
    > this response
    > simply tells me that discussion is not on your agenda today, so I'll
    > not waste my time.

    Read cop-out....

    I get tired of trying to straighten out double and triple negatives in
    sentences.  I'm afraid that I might misinterpret what you were trying
    to say.  I, unlike other in here, don't want to put words in others
    mouths.  Looking at what you wrote is enough to give most English
    instructors cause to commit suicide.

================================================================================
Note 155.442                    i hate do-gooders                     442 of 452
DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!"     21 lines   8-AUG-1995 11:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The point being, however, that the Act lists (or should list) aspects
    of a person that shouldn't have any bearing on thier qualification for
    a job.  Other aspects, such as height, weight, physical fitness,
                                           ^^^^^^
    criminal record, intellectual ability, education level or even personal
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    hygiene can be considered valid reasons for discrimination, depending
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    upon the job.  Therefore, they are not listed.
    
================================================================================
Note 155.443                    i hate do-gooders                     443 of 452
TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!"   12 lines   8-AUG-1995 11:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    .442
    
    Wotta zinger, Dan.  So, are you saying that you oppose preventing
    convicted pedophiles from working in the child care industry, or
    disallowing seriously overweight people from becoming pilots in a
    fighter jet that they might not be able to safely fit in, or 
    discriminating against a medical student for an internship just 
    because he's getting lousy marks?
    
    Are you arguing just for the sake of argument, Dan?
    
    ****Begin new note****
    
    Does anyone else wonder how .443 followed from .442?

================================================================================
Note 155.425                    i hate do-gooders                     425 of 453
SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..."      15 lines   7-AUG-1995 16:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .420
    
    >        Murder is reprehensible too. But we do have laws against it.
    
    I draw a line somewhere in between making decisions based on skin color
    and murder.
    
    Where? Much more towards the murder side. (The line in question being
    what we should/should not legislate against.)
    
    My feelings basically boil down to:
    There are many bad things that people can do. It is not up to us
    (us=society, government) to legislate against all of them. Somewhere,                                             
    someone has to draw a line. Who draws the line? Voters, through local &
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    state & federal reps. I vote against most new legislation.
================================================================================
Note 155.437                    i hate do-gooders                     437 of 453
BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo"                                 18 lines   8-AUG-1995 10:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Ahhh..... now we have the laws based on where you draw the line???? Why
                                                                            ^^^
are you able to draw the line, and not someone else?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Glen

***begin new note****	

Try reading it again. I think you missed something the first time.
    

    
    .453,
    
    Perhaps the source of your confusion lies in the fact that in .442 Dan 
    quoted me without indicating so, leaving the appearance that the text 
    you quoted from .442 were his words, when in fact they were mine.
    
    jc
    

    
    In actual fact .442 was to point out that all of this was being
    re-hashed and that John was not adding anything to the discussion. 
    Sorry for the inconvenience Jim.

    Dan

NOW they tell me.
:)

| <<< Note 155.450 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| John if you honestly want a response try translating your questions
| into coherent English.

	Can people from Canada do that??? :-)   

    
    .458:
    
    We speak Franglench and Canajun up here, Glen.
    

| <<< Note 155.459 by TROOA::COLLINS "Careful! That sponge has corners!" >>>


| We speak Franglench and Canajun up here, Glen.

	as is canajun steak perhaps??? :-)

    
    re: .459
    
    and how is "coments" spelled in Franglench and Canajun????
    

    
    Parley voos frank-case???
    

    Maize wee.

    
    
    Pepe la pew???
    

    Je hopue elle ta door?

    
    La llama est un quadrupedo.
    

    Watch it, or you'll be sacked.

    
    llamas are larger than frogs.
    

    
    Cuidado, cuidado, cuidado, cuidado....las llamas!
    
    

	le pant.....

	le heave.....

	le....SHRIEK!!!!!

Paul et Louise, comment vont ils?

Paul va fort bien, mais Louise est malade.

Il est grave?

Non. C'est ne pas grave.

    
    Moi, je quittez mons pays bleu...  (or zomezing like zat zerr)
    

    I used to get blue paychecks too.

     <<< Note 155.434 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..." >>>

>    However, Dartmouth claims it is not using AA in these programs - that
>    it is just trying to mantain compliance with the CRA. And the record
>    keeping required by the feds is a part of the CRA.
 
	Well then, in Mr. Bill's immortal words, LIES ALL LIES.

   
> Guess my beef isn't with the CRA as much
>    as with those who use it as a shield to hide behind.

	Bingo!

Jim

     <<< Note 155.436 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    So why do we need to add sexual preference?

	Because basically, the law does not so much prohibit discrimination
	against groups, as musch as it prohibits discrimination for particular
	reasons.

	Rember the refference to the case where a black man could be fired
	because the employer said he was Gay, even though the REAL reason
	they wanted to get rid of him because he was black?

	A better question, why NOT add sexual orientation? everybody's got
	one, so your reservations about exclusion are certainly covered.

Jim 
 

	Jim, don't you know that sexual orientation just means gay to many of
those who don't want to add it into law????  Fear that gays will get this or
that... when in reality, the law covers all. Funny how that works...huh?


Glen

    
    > A better question, why NOT add sexual orientation?
    
    We should not put ANY catagories in the law.  If we do not put general
    categories into the law, we decrease the likelihood for subgroups to
    exist.  These categories and subgroups, in my never humble opinion, lead 
    to castes and divisiveness.

    Dan

    
    > A better question, why NOT add sexual orientation?
    
     Seen on Fred Jerk's car...
    
    "Hi, I'm a pedophile and I vote!"
    

    
    So who's this Fred Jerk, a ball player or sumptin'?
    

    <<< Note 155.480 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    We should not put ANY catagories in the law.  If we do not put general
>    categories into the law, we decrease the likelihood for subgroups to
>    exist.  These categories and subgroups, in my never humble opinion, lead 
>    to castes and divisiveness.

	Race is not a subgroup. Gender is not a subgroup, Sexual orientation
	is not a subgroup. They are all inclusive.

	The fact that certain groups may find the law to be more beneficial
	than others, is not a reason to scrap the law. All have equal access
	and protection under its provisions.

Jim

    
    > Race is not a subgroup. Gender is not a subgroup, Sexual orientation
    > is not a subgroup. They are all inclusive.

     Group     Sub-Group

             <African-American
            < Asia
      Race <  Hispanic
            < etc.

    > The fact that certain groups may find the law to be more beneficial
    > than others...

    > All have equal access and protection under its provisions.

    It strikes me that these two statements are mutually exclusive.  If one
    finds the law more beneficial than another, I believe that it is
    because they gain an advantage by its existence.  This directly
    contradicts the implication of the second statement that "All have
    equal access"

    This is why I'm opposed to the way the CRA is written.

    <<< Note 155.484 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>     Group     Sub-Group

>             <African-American
>            < Asia
>      Race <  Hispanic
>            < etc.

	Group: African-American, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, Caucasian.

>    It strikes me that these two statements are mutually exclusive.  If one
>    finds the law more beneficial than another, I believe that it is
>    because they gain an advantage by its existence.  This directly
>    contradicts the implication of the second statement that "All have
>    equal access"

>    This is why I'm opposed to the way the CRA is written.

	The fault agains does not lie withing the law as written. The fact
	that Blacks may benefit more has nothing to do with the wording of
	the law, it has to do with the fact that they are more often the
	victims of discrimination.

	Blacks would benefit more even if we usd your suggested wording
	for the same reason.

Jim

    .485
    
    How do you propose that we differentiate between these groups?
    
    What about a person who is, say, half Jamaican and half Irish?
    
    Where do we draw lines based on race?
    
    Does it depend upon your skin color, or where you were born?

| <<< Note 155.481 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>


| > A better question, why NOT add sexual orientation?
| Seen on Fred Jerk's car...
| "Hi, I'm a pedophile and I vote!"

	Gee.... being a pedophile is a sexual orientation? Since when? 


Glen

     <<< Note 155.486 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..." >>>

>    Where do we draw lines based on race?
 
	The point of the CRA is that you do not have to draw any lines.
	Race is simply not a valid reason for discrimination, period.

	BTW, your example confuses national origin with race.

Jim

    Jim, 
    
    > 	The point of the CRA is that you do not have to draw any lines.
    > 	Race is simply not a valid reason for discrimination, period.
    
    The problem is that the CRA IS drawing lines.  Race, Gender, etc. are
    the lines that it's drawing.  It is dividing the country and the
    citizens along these lines.
    
    Dan

    .487
    
    Why is being a pedophile not a sexual orientation?
    
    .488
    
    Agreed. My example does list national origin, not race. Many races have
    their names defined by national (or geographical) origin, however.
    
    e.g. Native American, African-American, Chinese,
    Japanese, Korean, etc.

     <<< Note 155.490 by SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..." >>>

>    Why is being a pedophile not a sexual orientation?
 
	A mental ilness is generally not recognized as a sexual orientation.

>    Agreed. My example does list national origin, not race. Many races have
>    their names defined by national (or geographical) origin, however.
 
	The examples you gave, however, were not.

	To deal with your examples of percentages.......

	The CRA does not have any language that requires the keeping of
	statistics. AA does. Under AA, in order to be "counted" as a
	minority you must be 1/8th minority (one grandparent must have been
	full blooded). It makes for very interesting record keeping.
   
Jim

>>    Why is being a pedophile not a sexual orientation?
> 
>	A mental ilness is generally not recognized as a sexual orientation.

Homosexuality used to be regarded as a mental illness, no?

    
    re: .491
    
    > A mental ilness is generally not recognized as a sexual orientation.
    
    So Jim, when they find some gene (sorry Haag!) that's the cause of
    pedophilia and declare it a normal genetic trait... what then?

	If a pedophile can bond with boys, and they are a man, then their
sexual orientation is homosexual, not pedophile. Now substitute girl for
boy. If someone just wants to have sex with little kids, that is rape. A
power issue.


Glen

Glen, are you saying that a homosexual pedophile is a homosexual, a heterosexual
pedophile is a heterosexual, but a bisexual pedophile is a rapist?

	Yes to one and two, no to three. A rapist is one who is on a power
trip. One who rapes kids just for an orgasm can be gay, straight, or bisexual.
One who bonds with kids, and has sex with them can be gay, straight, or
bisexual. I don't think a rapist is a pedophile, and I don't think you would
see them agreeing that a rapist is a pedophile either.


Glen

    minor nit:  rape for an orgasm????  doesn't fit in with current
    criminology theories in that regard.

    
    
    Silva's deflection shields are up and at full power!!!
    

So if Michael Jackson really loves and bonds with 10-year-olds, and then
has sex with them, he's not a pedophile?  That's a novel idea.  I'm sure
NAMBLA would agree.

| <<< Note 155.497 by POWDML::CKELLY "The Proverbial Bad Penny" >>>

| minor nit:  rape for an orgasm????  doesn't fit in with current criminology 
| theories in that regard.

	I'm confused with this part 'tine. Could you explain it some more?
Thanks.


Glen

| <<< Note 155.498 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

| Silva's deflection shields are up and at full power!!!

	Errrr..... how?

| <<< Note 155.499 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>



| So if Michael Jackson really loves and bonds with 10-year-olds, and then
| has sex with them, he's not a pedophile?  That's a novel idea.  I'm sure
| NAMBLA would agree.

	I guess I draw a difference between rape for power issues, and sex with
minors out of bonding. Both I feel are wrong. NAMBLA would more than likely
only view one of them as being wrong.


Glen

    re: .502
        
    
    Errrrrr... that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation...
    
     But never mind, you're doing a darned good job of showing how it is,
    so.. keep up the good work!!!
    

| <<< Note 155.504 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

| Errrrrr... that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation...

	cuz it ain't..... no deflection.....

| But never mind, you're doing a darned good job of showing how it is, so..
| keep up the good work!!!

	Uh huh......

    
    Check BU's fall semester schedule!!

  <<< Note 155.492 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Homosexuality used to be regarded as a mental illness, no?

	At one time. No longer though.

Jim

<<< Note 155.493 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

>    So Jim, when they find some gene (sorry Haag!) that's the cause of
>    pedophilia and declare it a normal genetic trait... what then?

	I doubt that you would ever see it dclared a "normal" genetic
	trait. Declared a genetic trait, maybe. But not "normal".

	A number of mental illnesses seem to have genetic causes. This does
	not mean that you don't treat them as illnesses.

Jim

    <<< Note 155.489 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

>    The problem is that the CRA IS drawing lines.  Race, Gender, etc. are
>    the lines that it's drawing.  It is dividing the country and the
>    citizens along these lines.
 
Dan,	I have tried to show you how the CRA does not draw lines, nor does
	it divide citizens for any of the current categories. This discussion
	got started because I suspected that you had blurred the lines between
	AA anf the CRA. It appears that this is still the case and I can't think
	of any other way to explain it that might help you make the distinction
	between the two.

Jim

    glen-
    
    your comment about an adult raping a kid for the orgasm....rape is
    not about the orgasm

    
    re: .509
    
    Ya see Jim, that's the rub.  You don't see the CRA as drawing lines.
    I do.  We are looking at the same words, and I see them as devisive and
    you do not.  I proposed an alternative, which I do not believe that you
    have commented on, which would remove this divisiveness.
    

    
    Why is pedophilia a mental illness, vs. homosexuality being a sexual
    preference?

Because the shrinks voted that way.

    Sorta like the Cannon of Scripture fellas.

>    Sorta like the Cannon of Scripture fellas.

BOOOOM!

| <<< Note 155.510 by POWDML::CKELLY "The Proverbial Bad Penny" >>>


| your comment about an adult raping a kid for the orgasm....rape is
| not about the orgasm

	Thanks 'tine. I think I listed power in my other notes (even ones
before that). The orgasm thing was more geared towards it wouldn't matter who
the person was, male, female, kid. Like when people in prison rape other guys.
They could very well be straight, but they are still doing a guy.


Glen

| <<< Note 155.512 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>


| Why is pedophilia a mental illness, vs. homosexuality being a sexual 
| preference?

	Victim with one, not with the other?

    
    Are you as clueless as you purport to be?
    

    >Are you as clueless as you purport to be?
        
    I daresay he's a lot more experience with what y'all are talking about
    that you do, so watch who's liable to earn the sobriquet 'clueless.'
    
    DougO

>    I daresay he's a lot more experience with what y'all are talking about
>    that you do, so watch who's liable to earn the sobriquet 'clueless.'

Is there any truth to the claims that being abused by an older man as a
child is often a major factor in the development of male homosexuality?

/john

    
    wow. sometimes, this is a scary place.
    
    -b

| <<< Note 155.518 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>


| Are you as clueless as you purport to be?

	That should read, "as Andy purports me to be"

    Not in the eyes of the researchers whose results I've seen.  But given
    how recently the society around us has finally only begun to come to
    terms with child abuse, including child sexual abuse- shoot, even the
    churches have only just started admitting there's a problem- clearly
    there's a need for much more research on the issue.  What's your
    opinion, John, dare you think the claim is true?
    
    DougO

| <<< Note 155.520 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| Is there any truth to the claims that being abused by an older man as a child 
| is often a major factor in the development of male homosexuality?

	I've heard many a people claim this, but none of them have ever been
anyone gay.


Glen

    
    re: .519
    
    >I daresay he's a lot more experience with what y'all are talking about
    >that you do, so watch who's liable to earn the sobriquet 'clueless.'
    
     Excuse me???  He is clueless if he makes a definitive statement such
    as there are no victims from/in/because of homosexuality. Does your
    defense of him include that kind of thinking too, or are you just on a
    crusade today cause Herr Binder tweeked your nose?

re .524

See notes written by Dan Katz.

/john

    
    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt.  Wrong.
    
    
    And as he's not here to join in the conversation, it's gauche to refer
    to him.
    
    

His notes are still readable.

But maybe he hasn't claimed it was a factor, even though it happened.

/john

| <<< Note 155.525 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>


| Excuse me???  He is clueless if he makes a definitive statement such as there 
| are no victims from/in/because of homosexuality. 

	Those victims are who Andy? Can you present some examples?


Glen

    
    John, your error is in saying that Daniel considers himself gay.  He
    does not.  End of discussion.
    
    

| <<< Note 155.528 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| His notes are still readable.

	Where are those notes John?



Glen
	

Well, if he no longer considers himself lesbigay, then that's progress.

Maybe he listened to me.

Further proof of my point.

/john

    <<< Note 155.511 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

>I proposed an alternative, which I do not believe that you
>    have commented on, which would remove this divisiveness.
 
	I commented on it in a couple of differnt contexts, one related
	to not making the law ALL inclusive, when some exclusion is
	warranted, the second related to your comment about who would
	benefit from your wording.

	You may want to go back and read these, since you evidently
	missed them the first time around.

Jim   

    
    Allow me to clarify:

    Why is consenual pedophilia a mental illness, vs. homosexuality being a 
    sexual preference?

    
    What ARE you babbling on about?  

| <<< Note 155.534 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>



| Why is consenual pedophilia a mental illness, vs. homosexuality being a
| sexual preference?

	One has a victim, one does not. A child may say yes, but it does not
change the fact that the child is being taken advantage of.



Glen

    <<< Note 155.512 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    Why is pedophilia a mental illness, vs. homosexuality being a sexual
>    preference?

	A person that can not stop themselves from vicitmizing children
	would certainly earn the title mentally ill. Since this is the
	very definition of a pedophile all pedophiles are mentally ill.

	You can not categorize Gays in the same, all inclusive manner.
	Certainly there are Gays that are mentally ill, but the majority
	are not (same as Hets). So it is fairly simple to see that the
	simple fact that someone is Gay does not make them mentally ill.


Jim

    <<< Note 155.534 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

>    Why is consenual pedophilia

	Consensual pedophilia is an oxymoron. A child can not give informed
	consent to such an act.

Jim

    
      Oh sure x years + 1 day is an inalienable right, x years - 1 day,
     nope, that's an illness.
    
      Ha !  bb
    

    
    > Consensual pedophilia is an oxymoron. A child can not give informed
    > consent to such an act.

    Jim, you may want to talk to Tom Ralston.  he seems to believe that a
    child of around 8 or so can contribute to his health care decision...

                     <<< Note 155.539 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

    
>      Oh sure x years + 1 day is an inalienable right, x years - 1 day,
>     nope, that's an illness.
 
	The "age of consent" varies from state to state as far as the
	law is concerned. But setting these differences aside, if you 
	get much below the age of 15 or 16, having sex with an adult,
	you are dealing with an adult with a serious problem.

Jim

| His notes are still readable.

>    What ARE you babbling on about?  
>    Where are those notes John?

Open LGP30::CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE  (and other conferences, as well)

DIR/ALL/AUTH=KATZ
DIR/ALL/AUTH=DKATZ

See his notes, and my replies to him.

/john

    <<< Note 155.540 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "It ain't easy, bein' sleezy!" >>>

    
>    Jim, you may want to talk to Tom Ralston.  he seems to believe that a
>    child of around 8 or so can contribute to his health care decision...

	No idea who he is, but if that's a deeply held opinion, he sounds
	like an idiot.

Jim

    
    Homosexuality and Bisexuality are two different things.
    
    

Fine.  Then I'll amend my previous question, and related replies:

| Is there any truth to the claims that being abused by an older man as a child 
| is often a major factor in the development of male homosexuality?

to

Is there any truth to the claims that being abused by an older man as a child 
is often a major factor in the development of male homosexuality or bisexuality?

Glen

    
    re: .529
    
    > Those victims are who Andy? Can you present some examples?
    
    
     Look... if DougO ascribes you any sort of "experience" in these
    things, and you don't know (or don't want to know, or are deflecting
    again, or just bluffing), then it's time for you to go out into the
    big, wide world out there and find your own examples. If there's all
    sorts of heterosexual victims, then... what?
    

    
      Well, then, by that logic, we certainly ought to declare
     "liberalism" a disease.  The practitioners are sick puppies
     and it is clear the followers are too clueless to consent.
     In fact, they all claim to be victims, last I checked.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 155.546 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

| > Those victims are who Andy? Can you present some examples?


| Look... if DougO ascribes you any sort of "experience" in these things, and 
| you don't know (or don't want to know, or are deflecting again, or just 
| bluffing), then it's time for you to go out into the big, wide world out there
| and find your own examples. If there's all sorts of heterosexual victims, 
| then... what?

	Gee Andy, I state that I do not see where a homosexual relationship, or 
someone just being homosexual, causes anyone to be a victim. The same with a 
heterosexual. Now you have stated otherwise. So I guess when I asked for some
examples, I had thought you, who claimed differently than me, had those examples
to list. Apparently you don't. 



Glen

    
    
    Apparently, I'm not going to do your leg-work for you.... 
    
    Just as was stated by someone else in here today, simply because I
    don't provide any "examples" or play your silly little game, does not
    negate the truth...

    
      Let's start by defining victims, Glen.  Are not all these very
     miserable people lining up in divorce court, the victims of marriage ?
     Aren't all these people dying of diseases brought on by their, or
     their partner's, sexual practices, victims of those practices ?
     Aren't those stuck on route 3 traffic like molasses, the victims of
     driving ?  If you step out on my deck, I guarantee you, you'll be
     the victim of mosquitoes.
    
      But then, as I never fail to point out, no real legal system anywhere
     distinguishes between behaviors based upon the perceived existence
     of "victims".  Nor will any, nor should any.  So maybe we'd be better
     off not wasting our time on this silly distinctions of the
     libertine party.
    
      bb

	Andy, you are so full of crap. You are the one who stated that there
are victims with homosexuality, not me. You could back your statement, or admit
that there are no victims. But your statement, without any proof to back your
claim, is bogus in the very least.


Glen

    
    re: .551
    
    See .550
    
    Very succint and well-stated BTW...
    

| <<< Note 155.550 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>


| Let's start by defining victims, Glen. Are not all these very miserable people
| lining up in divorce court, the victims of marriage?

	But would they be a victim of heterosexuality? No.

| Aren't all these people dying of diseases brought on by their, or their 
| partner's, sexual practices, victims of those practices?

	But would they be victims of their being hetero/homosexual? No.

| Aren't those stuck on route 3 traffic like molasses, the victims of driving?  

	But would they be victims of their being hetero/homosexual? No.

| If you step out on my deck, I guarantee you, you'll be the victim of 
| mosquitoes.

	But would they be victims of their being hetero/homosexual? No.

	You see, Andy said there are victims with homosexuals. I have said no,
there aren't. Someone who is gay or straight may do an action to another, but
does that person become a victim of that persons hetero/homosexuality? No. In
the things you listed above, the victims are as follows: (imho)

	1) They are victims of not being able to reconcile their differences
	   and/or problems. They are not victims of heterosexuality.

	2) They are victims for their actions, not for their sexual orientation.

	3) They are victims of choosing a bad route, not for their sexual
	   orientation.

	4) They are victims of the mosquitos, not of anyones sexual orientation



Glen

| <<< Note 155.552 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>


| re: .551

| See .550

| Very succint and well-stated BTW...

	now read .553....

    > Excuse me???  He is clueless if he makes a definitive statement such
    > as there are no victims from/in/because of homosexuality.
    
    That isn't what he did, of course, as Jim Percival has pointed out.
    What he did was contrast the fact that there are (always) victims in
    pedophilia cases, whereas that isn't true in homosexuality.  I think
    Glen would admit that there is always a potential for victimization in
    any relationship- I personally have certainly witnessed all kinds of
    sick behavior in relationships, some of which did make one partner a
    victim of the other.  Those are usually heterosexual relationships, but
    not exclusively.
    
    > Does your defense of him include that kind of thinking too,
    
    My 'defense' involves pointing out that you are misrepresenting what he
    said.
    
    DougO

    
    RE: .554
    
    Bravo!!!! Now that was authoritative!!!!
    
    Now go back and put in "IMO" cause that's all it is and nothing else...
    
    I can play the same game you can, and say "Well, just back it up with
    facts and figures!", but you can't so I won't...
    

	I suppose it would make sense if you even could back what you stated.
But you know ya can't. 



Glen

    >Then I'll amend my previous question, and related replies:
           
    You haven't indicated whether or not YOU believe it, John,
    as you were asked in .523.
    
    DougO

    
    re: .555
    
    >What he did was contrast the fact that there are (always)
                                                      ^^^^^^^^
    
    
    And you say I'm misrepresenting what's being said????
    

    
    re: .557
    
    >You can make the claim, but ya can't back it....
    
    
    Like I said... I can play your little game as long as you can...
    

    >>What he did was contrast the fact that there are (always)
    >                                                   ^^^^^^^^
    >    And you say I'm misrepresenting what's being said????
    
    Yes.  You took the implied "always" applicable to pedophilia victims and
    invented a contrasting "never" that you claimed Glen intended applied
    to gays.  You misrepresented what he said.
    
    DougO

>| Is there any truth to the claims that being abused by an older man as a child 
>| is often a major factor in the development of male homosexuality?

It is well established that early sexual exposure, whether consensual or not,
has a significant impact on behavioral and developmental traits 
and plays a major role in future sexual behavious, especially in the teen 
years.

Young girls are largest group (negatively) affected by early exposure. 

So, to answer the question, It would be expected that a portion of young boys
sexually abused by other boys/men, would tilt towards homosexual behaviours
later on in life where if that exposure had not occured they would not have 
done so.

That's not to say that homosexual behaviours are negative (which is a separate
discussion), just that a childs environment and experiences can have a profound
effect  on their development.

Doug.

    > It is well established...
    
    by?

>    > It is well established...
>    
>    by?


   I'm merely a casual observer of information as it crosses my senses.
   But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to digest the information that
   is published every day, in the paper, on the television, on the radio,
   that in fact early sexual exposure can and most often does have a profound 
   and often very destructive effect in a childs life.

   This is why we have laws that protect children and punish adults in these
   regards.

   If that doesn't meet your criteria then so be it. Show me well documented
   evidence that early sexual exposure has no meaningful effect on the 
   development of an idividual and then we'll talk.

   Doug.

<<< Note 155.549 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>

    
>    Just as was stated by someone else in here today, simply because I
>    don't provide any "examples" or play your silly little game, does not
>    negate the truth...

	You'll pardon us if we do not accept your simple assertion as
	"the truth".

Jim

    	Common sense is not good enough, Doug.  You must have all i's 
    	crossed, and all t's dotted, and your spelling must be perfect,
    	and your grammar flawless, and your proof must be so airtight
    	that you couldn't break wind through it.

    
    562.
    
    I don't think so. As mentioned before it's very difficult to get
    definitive data about subjects like this.   You use the terms exposure
    and abuse as if they were interchangeable.  Sure, we learn from
    exposure, and that can have positive outcomes under the right
    circumstances.
    
    Most of what we do know about sexually *abused* female children
    indicates that they have great difficulty forming stable heterosexual
    relationships later in life.
    
    I would expect different outcomes from male children abused by older
    boys and men.  There is a phenomenon called "learned helplessness"
    which indicates that some abuse sufferers migh grow dependent on a
    behaviour that was originally abuse (e.g. the battered wife syndrome)
    but it's much more likely that a male child sexually abused by a male
    adult or older boy would develop aversive feelings to homosexuality.
    
    Sexual abuse of minors is often accompanied by threats of physical
    violence, or occures withing the family, where strong psychological
    preassure can be brought to bear on the victim.  That doesn't seem like
    the kind of environment that would be conducive to developing a
    positive feeling towards homosexual sex, more like a strong aversion.
    
    The developmental age of the abused child would have a significant
    effect too.  The greater the level of sexual self-awareness in the
    young victim, the greater the amount of dissonance and stress created
    by the abuse.
    
    I'd be more inclined to guess that many violent homophobes were the
    product of such abuse, rather than loving homosexuals.
    
    

   >that in fact early sexual exposure can and most often does have a profound 
   >and often very destructive effect in a childs life.
    
    well sure, but... very destructive effect == being homosexual?
    
    i don't make the connection at all, sorry. i live in state which
    had a very public pedophilia case not too long ago (the james
    porter case) and while there were many male victims of his
    outrageous acts, i don't recall any of the victims saying they
    turned gay as a result. is there a cause and effect or isn't
    there?
    
    -b

          <<< Note 155.566 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	Common sense is not good enough, Doug. 

	Common sense often is neither common, nor does it really
	make sense much of the time. You would LIKE to believe
	this bit of "common sense". But the reality is that the
	majority of male homsexuals were not sexually abused
	by male pedophiles as children. That, of course, is
	not to say that none were. But at the same time there
	are a  number of male heterosexuals that were as well.

	Given these facts, it is not possible to even assert,
	let alone prove, causality.

Jim

    <<< Note 155.569 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	this bit of "common sense". But the reality is that the
>	majority of male homsexuals were not sexually abused
>	by male pedophiles as children. 
    
    	I wasn't aware that the claim specified any percentage
    	of cases, nevermind a majority.  I thought the claim was 
    	that there was "a portion..." who become homosexual because 
    	of childhood exposure.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

          <<< Note 155.570 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

>    	I wasn't aware that the claim specified any percentage
>    	of cases, nevermind a majority.  I thought the claim was 
>    	that there was "a portion..." who become homosexual because 
>    	of childhood exposure.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

	I take it that you ran "is often a major factor..." through the
	famous Oppelt-filters, and came up with this translation that
	the rest of us missed.

Jim

>    You haven't indicated whether or not YOU believe it, John,

I think it is a significant factor in many cases.  I know a number of
homosexuals who admit to having been abused; they do not necessarily
agree that the abuse caused the choice of lifestyle.

Another factor is a serious problem in the relationship with the father.
I know several people who fit this profile.

One of my step-brothers is gay, and I believe it is because of a terrible
relationship with his father, especially the way his father treated his
mother and him (just entering puberty) when he decided to abandon his
family to set up housekeeping with a younger woman.  His older brother
is not gay; he was already off at college when the family problem started.

/john

    <<< Note 155.571 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	I take it that you ran "is often a major factor..." through the
>	famous Oppelt-filters, and came up with this translation that
    
    	"is often a major factor" is not the same as "majority of
    	male homosexuals" as you said.
    
    	And why do you have to make your response a personal attack
    	so often?  I seem to have to point this out to you preactically
    	every time we have a discussion.

          <<< Note 155.573 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

	I didn't notice either a denial or a retraction.

Jim

| <<< Note 155.555 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>


| That isn't what he did, of course, as Jim Percival has pointed out. What he 
| did was contrast the fact that there are (always) victims in pedophilia cases, 
| whereas that isn't true in homosexuality. I think Glen would admit that there 
| is always a potential for victimization in any relationship- 

	I agree, there is the potential for victimization to happen in any
relationship, but I do not believe you can attribute it to being heterosexual
or homosexual. 


Glen