From: pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:40:29 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: copland.crhc.uiuc.edu

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>So tell me, why is it that the last time I filled out an insurance
>form election (last month), I noticed that there were boxes on the
>form for dependent coverage for people other than relatives?  I
>don't think MY employer offers such, but it's clearly common enough
>for the insurance company to make provision for it.

Oh, my God, Clayton saw a box - I must have equal rights.

Clayton, not even you can really think this is evidence of anything.  The
truth is that spousal insurance benefits for same-sex partners are rare
enough to make the news each and every time they are offered.

>there being few stable homosexual relationships

What am I to think of a society that refuses to recognize the stable 
relationships we form, and then condemns us for not forming stable
relationships?

One of the reasons you see so few is that they hide from people like you.

># In spousal benefits and in many kinds of family memberships, the offerer
># is often quite content to let the state define a family.  That decision is
># already being made by the state - I just want it made differently.

>No, the employer is choosing to use the state's rules.  That's the
>company's choice, not the state's requirement.

Exactly.  The state's definition is now used voluntarily across our society.
To change that definition doesn't force anyone to do anything, it just
removes one of the reasons gay people suffer.

>No, just that I have limited time to engage in debate with fools.

To quote your post of 5 Oct 92 ("The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 1 of 4")

CC>    The Ground Rules
CC>    ----------------
CC>
CC>    I will not respond to any followup that contains ad hominem attacks,
CC>    even if there are substantive criticisms contained therein, simply
CC>    because it's too draining, and because someone who lacks the self-
CC>    control to respond to facts without engaging in character assassination
CC>    isn't worth my time; it's a sign that someone is so irrational as
CC>    to be a waste of time to argue with.

For the record, I do consider your history of prejudiced, stereotype-based
bigotry and hatred toward gays relevant to any discussion of the validity
of the attacks you make on gay people.  If holding you accountable for
the hateful things you've said in the past is character assasination,
then I'm guilty.

>I don't think the state should be involved in marriage.  It's none
>of their damn business, just like any other consenting action between
>consenting adults.  It's a shame that homosexuals don't believe that.

I knew you couldn't say it without tacking on a dig at gays.

-- 
Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.
Center for Reliable High-Performance Computing     Urbana, IL 61801
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign         (217) 244-7179
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush