XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, alt.california 
 From: wstewart@hawaii.rr.com 
  
 On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 01:53:18 GMT, "The Pervert" 
  wrote: 
  
 > 
 >"Ward Stewart"  wrote in message 
 >news:oni0jvcn98tktb0nvlm5d6k0qrfrgdicnp@4ax.com... 
 >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:27:48 GMT, "The Pervert" 
 >>  wrote: 
 >> 
 >> > 
 >> >"Ward Stewart"  wrote in message 
 >> >news:fquvivgpaen7jacllpu06572oidls84ild@4ax.com... 
 >> >> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 16:05:21 GMT, "The Pervert" 
 >> >>  wrote: 
 >> > 
 >> >> >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. 
 >> > 
 >> >> >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. 
 >> > 
 >> >> You consider it to be indecent and radical that George and I, after 
 >> >> nearly a half-century together should seek the protections that are 
 >> >> automatic for opposite sex couples? 
 >> > 
 >> >You don't read nor comprehend, Ward.  And that's fine, but don't ask 
 >anybody 
 >> >to support your stupidity. 
 >> > 
 >> >Long ago I said that while I do not support unions between gays being 
 >called 
 >> >marriage, per se, I had little problem with such unions being given civil 
 >> >sanction with associated protections thereto.  That you and George have a 
 >> >half century together is fine.  May you have another half century 
 >together. 
 >> >It's none of my business. 
 >> > 
 >> >And that is exactly why I consider you a liar and a hypocrite because 
 >we've 
 >> >gone over this several times already, but you still feel compelled to 
 >bring 
 >> >up issues which do not exist.  If you have a problem with society for not 
 >> >calling your relationship what you want it called, bitch and moan to 
 >> >society.  I don't particularly care. 
 >> 
 >> You misread me -- hardly a surprise since you seem to misread almost 
 >> everything -- I don't give a whistle WHAT such an arrangement is 
 >> called -- I do require, however, that such an arrangement be PRECISELY 
 >> EQUAL to marriage -- 
 > 
 >I can only read what you wrote.  If you cannot express yourself adequately 
 >utilizing the English language (do re-read what you wrote and then come back 
 >and apologize for your stupidity and misplaced arrogance), don't get pissed 
 >at me for your inadequacies. 
 > 
 >You were in a total tizzy about the term "marriage" before.  Deny it and 
 >we'll both know you're a liar... which we both already know anyway.    If 
 >you are now changing your story, that's fine.  There may be some remote hope 
 >for you yet. 
 > 
 >> >And given your behavior and attitude in this forum, I will never support 
 >> >what you want.  Why?  Because I don't like you.  I don't like your lies, 
 >and 
 >> >I don't like your stupidity.  Is that because you're gay?  No.  It's 
 >because 
 >> >you lie and you're sanctimonious and demanding.  Deal with it, Ward. 
 >> 
 >> SURPRISE -- big surprise!   What I "demand" is that I stand EQUAL 
 >> before ALL the institutions of our society.   I know that the words 
 >> "equal" and "all" present a challenge for you -- that is and will be 
 >> YOUR proem. 
 > 
 >I have no problem.  Once again, of course, you don't know what the hell 
 >you're talking about and are (as usual) making your assumptions based on 
 >your own prejudice. 
 > 
 >And once again you "demand" rights not yet established.  You are not equal. 
 >Deal with it.  Neither am I in certain areas.  I have to deal with it as 
 >well.  For instance, I am more intelligent than most.  That's not bragging, 
 >merely statistics.  Even so, I have to deal with many situations that are 
 >dumbed down for those not quite as bright.  For the average person.  That's 
 >the way it is.  I have to deal with it.  You do too.  So sorry that's not 
 >convenient, but then again, as usual I don't much care. 
 > 
 >> You probably recited the Pledge of allegiance to the flag most 
 >> mornings of your elementary school life -- did you listen to the words 
 >> being said -- "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL?" 
 > 
 >I know the Pledge.  What you consider "liberty and justice" may be at odds 
 >with the rest of the country, of course, buit don't let that little fact get 
 >in the way of your demands.  P.S.  I also agree with the deletion of the two 
 >un-Constitutional words. 
 > 
 >> >> >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. 
 >> >> 
 >> >> Petitioning in the courts and in the body politic is "demanding?" 
 >> > 
 >> >Petition the courts all you want.  Such is your right.  Knock yourself 
 >out. 
 >> 
 >> We are and do. 
 > 
 >And where have I objected to that?  I haven't.  Say differently and we'll 
 >both yet again know that you're a liar. 
 > 
 >> >Demanding society see you and your relationships by your standards rather 
 >> >than theirs (i.e., society's) and damning them for daring to disagree 
 >with 
 >> >you and your pronouncements is, redundantly, demanding.  For such 
 >demands, 
 >> >you will get what you deserve.  To wit: very little in terms of real 
 >> >understanding and respect, and no small amount of contempt. 
 >> 
 >> And stunning victory after stunning victory -- 
 > 
 >Congratulations.  Court arguments (which require a level of logic, civility 
 >and reason) work far better than your little snits. 
 > 
 >> >> >But apparently they don't really want understanding and acceptance 
 >which 
 >> >> >brings forth a reaction that includes terms like "militant queers." 
 > 
 >> YOU become foul mouthed and therefore I am wrong for so provoking 
 >> you??  A FANTASTIC notion. 
 > 
 >Once again, you can't read and are not too terribly bright.  I did not 
 >initiate the term "militant queers" although I did quote is having been used 
 >by somebody else.  What would, indeed, be fantasitic, is for you to know 
 >what you were talking about. 
 > 
 >> >Maybe 
 >> >> >that's some of that "circular logic" you were talking about.  But like 
 >I 
 >> >> >said, I'm not really sure what the term means.  Maybe it's "illogical 
 >> >> >logic?" 
 >> >> 
 >> >> It is, quite simply, the illogic that lies at the heart of the 
 >> >> definition of xenophobia. 
 >> > 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)