🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gall-0304981020220001@usrts1m10.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca 
(Norman Gall) wrote:

>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.
> 

Lynching is a clear act of instigated aggression and is wrong on those 
grounds. Failure to support is _not_ the same as instigating aggression.

 
>> >> "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.
>

I am advocating exactly that. Welcome on board :-)

>> >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.
>

Correct.

>
>> >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.
>

Exactly.

>> >> 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.
> 

Again--being stomped on is a very different thing from a situation where folks 
simply wish not to support someone.

>> >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? 
>

Because some folks think homosexuality or bisexuality is abhorrent--akin to or 
worse than wearing socks that don't properly match an outfit. Folks should be 
able to choose who they wish to support by entering or not entering into 
business relationships with them.

>> >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.
>

Wasn't saying that. I was saying that pushing folks to make decisions 
engenders a needless reaction in many cases. I am for education and argument, 
not coercion.

>
>Norm Gall
>

Ron