🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4l4ctn$rq5@holly.cc.uleth.ca>, bagnps@hg.uleth.ca says:
>
>In article <4l22fj$6pq@boulder.earthnet.net>, bob@compopt.com (Bob Cormack) writes:
>>In article <31629575.41C67EA6@skepsis.com>, Bob Donahue <donahue@skepsis.com> says:
>>>
>><...>
>>>
>>>        If they vote it down, then the issue of passing laws
>>>forbidding laws that great equal rights on the basis of orientation
>>>is dead.  Furthermore, it sets a strong precident that similar
>>>laws forbidding the recognition of same-sex marriages will also
>>>run into problems constitutationally.  
>>>
>>                                                                        
>>I don't believe that there is any precedent relationship here at all.
>>If marriage were a civil right regardless of who was married to whom,
>>then marriage should be extended to any and all, including animals,
>>inanimate objects, etc.  
>
>"If marriage were a _civil right_..." 
>
>Civil (adj.) "pertaining to city, state, or *citizen*..."
>
>Unless you can produce a few examples of animals or inanimate objects
>which can be considered citizens in the full sense of the word, the 
>first part of your argument is null and void. Nothing more than the
>usual alarmist slippery-slope claptrap that so often signifies your
>side's idea of rational debate on the issue of homosexuality.
>                                                                       
                                                                      
Well Pete, thanks for a thoughtful (if largely mis-aimed and uncivil) 
reply.  The "If ..., Then" argument, far from being a warning as you 
seem to think, is a piece of reductio ad absurdum.  I do agree with your 
analysis of it's flaws, up to the point where you start extrapolating 
wildly about my intentions.                       
                                                                        
You do seem to be the only one who realizes that I didn't compare
gays (or any other group of humans) to animals and inanimate objects,
however.                                                             

>                                                                      
>I sometimes am amazed at the reaction to the very idea of same-sex
>marriage. Our society has created this ideal of a loving, lifetime
>pair-bond (and I say "ideal" because we all know what passes for
>'til-death-do-us-part nowadays). Yet when the gay and lesbian
>community aspires to this model of lifetime commitment and 
>responsible sexuality, it is somehow taken as an offense against
>heterosexual marriage, rather than a recognition of the value of
>the ideal. It certainly doesn't make much sense to me.
                                                                      
In fact, the desire for commitment within the gay community seems like
a positive development to me also.  One can hope that the ideals of
responsibility and civility spread as well.  One possible compromise
(another of those ideal behaviours that is not immediately gratifying,
but has long term benefits) is the "domestic contracts" that some
cities have begun to experiment with.  This could evolve into marriage
in all but name, if given a chance, and the name would follow eventually
when, as you suggest later, nothing much happens to the world.  Of
course, if the goal is not so much personal commitment as in-your-face
activism, defiance and denigration of other's beliefs, then compromise
won't be as much fun as shouting.                                
                                                                                                                                               
>
<...>
>Well, if we actually could get twits like you to address the
>deeper issues, it might not even be before the courts. Instead,
>we get a bunch of straight bigots monopolizing the definition of
>homosexuality ("It's a choice." "It's an unnatural lifestyle."
>"It's a sin."). The experiences and testimony of millions of 
>gay men and lesbians are routinely ignored in the "discussion".
                                                                     
Well, its pretty easy (and fairly useless) to discuss things only with
people who completely agree with you.  And calling names and making 
unfounded accusations against anyone who doesn't agree with you does
not count as "discussion" -- in fact, it's a real good way to get ignored.                                       
                                                                 
>                                                                
>We'd be quite happy to address the deeper issues--as soon as
>you're able to figure out what the real issues are. HINT: try
>reading for content whilst you peruse the gay newsgroups.  
                                                                  
Let's see;  what this means is that you'll discuss things with me
as soon as I agree with you?  Why bother?                            
                                                                 
>
<...>
>
>Sooner or later, our society is going to have to deal with the
>reality of its homosexual minority. <...>                           
>
>Pete
>                                                                
                                                                                                                                 
Haven't you read any history?  Homosexuals have been around as long as
the human race has existed.  Nothing *has* to change, and if things do 
change they don't have to change in a way that you approve of.  
Attitudes towards homosexuality have been all over the map through 
different historical periods and places.  Change mostly occurs in our
society through politics (defined broadly), and the politics of
alienation have never produced satisfactory results.
                                                             
Bob Cormack