vision2020
Re: rumor control
> My thanks to the Douglases et alia who have once again made this forum
> interesting. The lively debates inspired me to once again subscribe, after a
> several-year haitus. And no sooner do I get back on the mailing list than
> what do I find? My name being loosely bantied about. I am thus compelled by
> strong family pride, if not a want of good sense, to throw in my two or so
> bits. You have no one to blame but Miss Huskey.
I don't blame Dr. Huskey (is this your correct title Melynda, I seem to
remember a PhD attached to your name somewhere, forgive the mistake if
there is one). On the contrary I congradulate her for prompting yet
another contributor to the discussion.
> The point made very clear by the observer was that the biblical
> paradigm was in conflict with current moral standards. If I said that
> Muslim fundamentalist whackos who fly airplanes into skyscrapers and
> kill thousands of innocent civilians should be shot; or that perverts
> who kidnap, torture, rape and kill 9-year-old girls should be strung
> up, it would pass almost without comment. But when I express even mild
> disagreement with homosexuality as a legitmate lifestyle, let alone
> call for any sanction, the arbiters of the morals of modernity call
> for my head. It is not the idea of punishment that bothers you, it is
> what gets punished. And, I would chime in with Mr. Wilson, who gets to
> decide?
OH!! But I would comment. And you'd see me their protesting the
executions just as vehemently as I would protest your execution (I hope
that never happens by the way).
> Miss Huskey is only correct in theory that you can be convicted of a felony.
> While homosexuality is against the law, the current morality police are
> willing to give the felons a pass in order to pursue the misdemeanants whose
> causes have not yet merited federal protection. If the miscreants who
> recently got into so much hot water for pilfering the gay-pride flag only
> had the presence of mind to plead that they were part of the Frat Boys
> Drinking and Thieving Alliance, and that they were merely trying to overturn
> archaic moral codes against taking other people's stuff while three sheets
> to the wind and to increase awareness of their alternative lifestyle, and
> that they had chosen the flag in question as a target because they knew
> their fellow oppressed peoples would understand, the whole little
> misunderstanding could have been cleared up with much less fuss. But, alas,
> they were merely drunken frat boys with a vague sense of patriotism fueled
> by too much Jack Daniels, and since they picked the wrong lifestyle group to
> mess with, they were prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And while all
> the community was apparently shocked at their misdemeanors, no one seemed to
> notice that the university-sanctioned victim club was promoting high crimes.
> Curiouser and curiouser.
So as a lawyer it doesn't bother you that they stole private property and
attempted to destroy that? How does that make the Gay Straight Alliance a
victim club? How do you know what the GSA adovocates and what it doesn't?
Have you ever been to a meeting? Seems you are apporating under a lot of
assumptions and some misconceptions. By the way, what is a "high crime?"
I'm unfamiliar with that term.
Love
Daniel
Back to TOC