XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.california 
 From: pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com 
  
 "Clay Colwell"  wrote in message 
 news:f415da82.0308060701.9e4ea4f@posting.google.com... 
 > "The Pervert"  wrote in message 
 news:<5BQXa.70997$Ho3.10158@sccrnsc03>... 
 > > "Clay Colwell"  wrote in message 
 > > news:f415da82.0308050635.63d90af4@posting.google.com... 
 > > > "The Pervert"  wrote in message 
 > >  news:... 
 > > > > "Ward Stewart"  wrote 
 > > > > 
 > > > > > >In other words, militant queers want it both ways - they want 
 > >  "inclusion" 
 > > > > > >into the same social institutions they are hell-bent on 
 destroying. 
 > >  They 
 > > > > > >sound just like the malcontent teenager who says he really 
 doesn't 
 > >  want 
 > >  to 
 > > > > > >go to the party, but wants an invitation so badly merely so he 
 can 
 > >  disrupt 
 > > > > > >it. :O| 
 > > > > > > 
 > > > > > Dim witted and nasty too -- a poisonous combination. 
 > > > > > 
 > > > > > Is it that you imagine that ALL Gays must have the SAME opinions? 
 > > > > > Michael Signorile and I (for instance) have entirely divergent 
 views 
 > > > > > in the matter of marriage. 
 > > > > 
 > > > > This is why your honesty and credibility are so lacking, Ward.  If 
 you 
 > >  were 
 > > > > honest enough to read what he actually said, he specified "militant 
 > >  queers", 
 > > > > not all gays. 
 > > > 
 > > > But it's still circular logic, and quite convenient, simply defining 
 > > > "militant" as "wanting access to civil same-sex marriage" or "wanting 
 > > > the ability to serve in the military". 
 > > 
 > > Feel free to disagree with a particular opinion.  What I was pointing 
 out 
 > > was Ward's usual dishonesty in misrepresenting what was actually said. 
 > > 
 > > Quite honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by "circular logic."  I just 
 > > don't know what the term means. 
 > 
 > We'll use this example.  Plenty of folks use this particular reasoning: 
 > "Gays are militant because they're destroying our institutions by 
 > wanting access to them." 
 > "Gays are destroying our institutions because they're militant." 
 > 
 > They use two prejudices to reinforce each other. 
 > 
 > Now, looking back at this, my comment is correct, but tangential. 
 > "Illogical logic" is probably better, as you note later on, simply 
 > because his comments rely on the assumptions that I noted, that the 
 > simple desire to have access to same-sex civil marriage is _a priori_ 
 > militant. 
  
 Here's something to think about (for no more than a nanosecond).  While the 
 desire for some kind of civil sanction may not, in and of itself, be 
 considered all that militant, the demand that same sex relationships being 
 declared marriages may not unreasonably considered more militant, and not 
 accepted by society. 
  
 > > For the record, I do not agree with the concept (fantasy) of same sex 
 > > marriages although I could see some kind of sanctioned "civil union," 
 and I 
 > > have no problem with gays in the military.  Yes, I believe it is the 
 more 
 > > militant gay groups that demand (what a joke) same sex relationships 
 being 
 > > recognized as marriage per se and I think they are demanding (and will 
 > > continue to get) opposition from society. 
 > 
 > We may have actually discussed this some years back.  Then, as now, I 
 > maintained that I can easily accept a "civil union", as long as it 
 > exactly duplicates the benefits and responsibilities that civil marriage 
 > grants.  In that case, I would think that demanding that it be called 
 > something other than "marriage" at that point is kinda petty. 
  
 We may have.  However I think demanding that it be called marriage per se is 
 insulting to a great many decent people's core values.  Is that your aim? 
 To insult a great many decent people?  Or is your aim to have successful a 
 relationship? 
  
 As for my own personal view, I think trying to force society to call same 
 sex relationships marriage is more a political ploy, deliberately offensive, 
 stupid, and a way for some (not necessarily all) to put their own feelings 
 of sexual identity and isolation in the faces of people they consider too 
 uptight (for lack of a better term). 
  
 > > As has been suggested, there is no monolithic "gay perspective" and it 
 is 
 > > but a relatively small segment of gays who are being demanding and who, 
 but 
 > > such demands, are insuring opposition from those with whom one might 
 think 
 > > they would want to cultivate understanding and acceptance. 
 > 
 > Well, "it takes all kinds", but rarely has anything of note been 
 > accomplished in a timely fashion by just sitting in the back of the 
 > room, meekly asking for equal inclusion, and rolling over onto one's 
 > back in surrender at the slightest suggestion of opposition. 
  
 Personally I don't think the concept of "equality"  really applies, nor do I 
 really have all that much time for the concept of equality anyway.  But to 
 explain that would be way too esoteric, a bit tangential, and not all that 
 conducive to the discussion and its appreciated civility. 
  
 I'm not suggesting anybody (on either side) meekly roll over.  What I do 
 suggest, however, is that changes come when a society is ready for them. 
 Sure, sometimes they have to become ready after much kicking and screaming 
 and gnashing of teeth, but that (to me) is actually part of the natural 
 process. 
  
 I'm fortunate to not have too much emotionally invested on either side. 
 That lack of emotional investment allows me the luxury of thinking more 
 rationally and clearly. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)