A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 26-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

But, the point is that I get to fight to the death

Do that. You won't be missed.

Which "gay rights" would you be referring to? Gays have exactly the same
rights as any other individual citizen under the Constitution.

12 states in the US make it illegal for homosexuals to make love.

Yes? What's your point? They have exactly the same right to make love as any
heterosexual couple. That they don't have an EXTRA right to make love to a
same sex partner doesn't mean their rights to have sex are any less or any
different from heterosexuals.

There is
no state that makes it illegal for heterosexuals to make love.

Actually, there are many that make it a crime for unmarried heterosexuals to
engage in sex. It's not often enforced, but it's on the books. There are
some others that make any sexual activity, either in or out of wedlock,
involving other than penile/vaginal contact a crime.

So, once again, homosexuals have exactly the same rights that heterosexuals
do. Granted, they may not have EXTRA rights to practice homosexual sodomy,
but then again neither do heterosexual couples.

Homosexuals
cannot marry in most US states - heterosexuals can marry in any state.

Well, not quite. Homosexuals cannot marry same-sex partners, but then again
neither can heterosexuals. Homosexuals most certainly CAN marry a person of
the opposite sex, because the marriage process does not inquire into one's
sexual proclivities. Thus, once again, homosexual rights are identical to
heterosexual rights. And again, it is true that homosexuals do not have
EXTRA rights to marry to the same sex.

Hardly examples of how gays have the same rights as non-gays.

Sorry, but your analysis is feeble. What you are talking about is
preferences, not rights. Homosexuals PREFER to have sex with members of the
same sex, and they would like society to recognize that as a "right to
choose." But that preference does not yet exist as a "right," and
homosexuals are subject to exactly the same laws that heterosexuals are. If
a heterosexual pedophile male has consensual sex with another male, in some
states he commits criminal sodomy just as if he were a homosexual. The law
does not proscribe sexual orientation or preference, it criminalizes
SPECIFIC ACTS, and it doesn't matter who commits those acts or what their
sexual preferences are.

Thus, the "rights" of homosexuals are precisely equal to the "rights" of
heterosexuals. Neither may engage in proscribed sex acts.

Now, the question of whether or not such sex acts SHOULD be proscribed is an
entirely different matter. But in this segment of the debate, you are
confusing a desire to engage in a specific behavior with a "right" to do so.


The worst sorts
of genocides and mass killings only take place where the oppressed minority
has been disarmed.

Armed minorities are still outnumbered. Guns are not an equalizer.

Incorrect. They are the "Great Equalizer." More importantly, your statement
suggests that minorities ought to remain disarmed merely because they do not
instantly achieve force parity with their oppressors. Sorry, but this is
shallow logic. If anything, you support my thesis that MORE and BETTER arms
are needed by minorities to ensure that they have sufficient force to defend
against a numerically superior oppressor.

That's exactly correct.


But they don't, they increase it.

Just because they haven't been, doesn't mean they can't be used to
reduce freedom. When someone puts a bullet thru your skull, you
lose all your rights.

Indeed. But the solution is not to disarm people and make it easier for
criminals and tyrants to put bullets through people's skulls, it's to give
them sufficient arms so that they can prevent that eventuality.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser