XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.california 
 From: fsmith@emuybcpl.net 
  
 The Pervert wrote: 
  
 > > 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? 
  
 So you think that gays are indecent? How prejudice of you. 
  
 > 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). 
  
 They're doing it just to agitate you then. (and decent people) 
  
 > > > 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, 
  
 Oh, of course not, if you think gays indecent, then the matter of 
 equality is not worth considering. 
  
 > 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. 
  
 Gives yourself more time to cultivate and rationalize your prejudice. 
  
 The one you claim not to have. 
  
 -- 
    Fritz 
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
    Taking back my freedom of conscience. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)