[Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] Bambi in public debate

[Karen Medina]

Ricky,

Thank you for your $.02.

Actually I posted the announcement more as an interesting way to watch 
Bambi in face-to-face interaction mode (we usually only get to read his 
words). The topic of the debate was not of importance for the peace 
list. But I did think people should be warned as to the topic, just in 
case they were interested in going.

Personally, I have no problem with gay or lesbian relationships. I think 
that being gay is not a choice nor any more unnatural than being a 
heterosexual is. I also think that any two people who want to make a 
permanent partner commitment to each other should be allowed to do so. 
And permanent partner relationships should allow for certain things like 
health insurance coverage, shared ownership of property, the ability to 
have or adopt children...

But I do not expect other peace list members to agree with me on this or 
most other non-anti-war issues.

-karen medina


Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Thanks for posting this, Karen.
> 
> It's certainly an important struggle, as all civil
> rights are, but actually I wouldn't anticipate this
> discussion being either "thought-provoking" or
> "entertaining".  Maybe that's just the old grouch in
> me.  
> 
> The issue is pretty clear, I think.  The State should
> not exclude certain classes of its citizens from
> participating in equality before the law, regardless
> of whether individual religious groups in the country
> are willing to help.  Any other position gives state
> sanction to one religious faction over another.
> 
> And that's exactly why it was a useful hobby horse to
> turn out the Religious Right for our Torturer-in-Chief
> last election.  
> 
> Silly and anti-intellectual arguments about "Adam and
> Steve", extinction of the human race (we are not
> increasing as fast as we could, you know), or how many
> same-sex sexual/parenting relationships among how many
> other species of animals would make it okay - or not -
> for humans to follow suit, as if such a thing could be
> legislated or harassed away, seem to me beside the
> point but much more likely to arise in the discussion
> than anything pertinent.  Oh- and the Clinton Admin's
> "sanctity of marriage" nonsense is sure to come up,
> too.  Ugh!   
> 
> Thank you, thank you, thank you, to anyone willing to
> sit through this, but I'd rather have a root canal or
> argue about whether the moon is made of green cheese. 
> Sorry.
> 
> Ricky