🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6g2kq8$p8u$1@usenet47.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
(Hithere) wrote:

> In article <gall-0204981606260001@usrts2m2.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca 
> (Norman Gall) wrote:

> I just figure it means the state wishes to impose its view of moral 
> righteousness--and that _is_ a fundamental attack on the moral fabric because 
> it prevents people from acting in accordance with their deeply held 
> convictions. As long as a person is not aggressive, I _support_ the right of 
> people to discriminate against gays and bisexuals. And don't go jumping to 
> conclusions...I _am_ bisexual, and I figure people have a perfect right
not to 
> rent to me (for instance) if they find my sexual preference unsupportable.

*I* don't, anymore than I support the 'right' of blacks to allow
themselves to be lynched or Christians to be discriminated against for
their lifestyles.

> >> "There are basically five major areas of concern that will come about
> >> as a result of this decision."
> >> 
> >> 1.) Redefinition of the Family
> >
> >Good.
> 
> Bad. definition of the family is not the proper role of government.

Sure it is.  Unless you are advocating the removal of all references to
family in all laws everywhere (i.e. repeal marriage acts, treat 'marriage'
like any contract, etc.). If so, I'm on board here.

> >Well, interestingly enough, your wrong. And even if you are right, so
> >what?  This decision doesn't prevent the faithful from getting married,
> >holding a central position in God's plan, or their destiny. It does
> >prevent the faithful from interfering in other people's lives.
 
> Nope. It merely prevents people from not supporting decisions they find 
> abhorrent.

Same thing, since non-heterosexual marriage has nothing more to do with
anyone else than does heterosexual marriage.


> >The desire to have sex with children isn't a 'sexual orientation'. 
> 
> Common ground. Pedophiles are of both genders and both genders are equally 
> wrong when acting on their fantasies.

I'm not sure what you are saying.  Having sex with children is wrong
becuase children cannot consent to the act.

> >> 3.) Erosion of Parental Rights
> >> 
> >> This decision will remove a Parent's right to choose who works with
> >> their children. 
> >
> >Based on irrelevant and incosequential ground, yes.  Do you think a parent
> >ahs the right to have a black or male or female or asian or native or
> >white teacher on the grounds that they they don't want one of 'them'
> >teaching their children?

> Yep. I think many of these decisions are stupid but I don't think every 
> _should_ needs a law attached to it.

Of course they don't.  They need laws attached to them when we have
individuals stomped on regularly and systematically.
 
> >The keyword here is 'predator'. They'll always have the right to
> >'discrimiante' on that basis - just not on the basis of orientation. 
> 
> But they _should_ have the right to discriminate on that basis.

But why? 

> >Trans: Erosion of Religious Bigotry

> That will happen anyway--without oppressive laws like this one. I do know 
> this--if someone is walking down a street in the direction I want them to 
> go...if I walk up behind them and PUSH, they'll stop and turn
around--and they 
> are not wrong for doing so.

False analogy.  It is more like having a person driving down the
sidewalk.  Buddy is not right in complaining that I'm trying to turn the
car back onto the road.


Norm Gall

-- 
" On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral duty 
  to speak one's mind. It becomes a pleasure."      Oscar Wilde