"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
No, I'm done with this. You run in circles, "proving" that the sky is
green
by claiming that the sky is green.

There are subsets of humankind that have managed to alienate themselves
from
every society they have lived in for thousands upon thousands of years.
Is
this arbitrary coincidence?

First, your historical claim is in error; not all cultures have oppressed
gay people. Such oppression has been widespread across many cultures for
millennia, but then so has the oppression of Jews. By your reasoning, the
Jews too must be at fault for having "managed to alienate themselves", since
that's the only alternative you acknowledge to "coincidence" as an
explanation for widespread, persistent oppression.

Secularists would have you believe that just
within the past few hundred years we have become so sophisticated as to
negate millions of years of evolutionary caution.

Secularists like the new Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire, and the
congregations that appointed him? Apparently "secularists" for you includes
the growing number of devoutly religious people who disagree with you.

It is only in the last 150 years that humanity has become so sophisticated
as to universally abolish overt, legally-sanctioned slavery. It is only in
the last 100 years that humanity has become so sophisticated as to have
nations *anywhere* in which both women and men elect their political
leadership. You suggest that if a group has been "alienated" from societies
until recently, then their continued disfavor must be warranted, and
arguments to the contrary are just "claiming that the sky is green". By
that view, the very tenaciousness of oppression becomes its own
justification! That position is as intellectually preposterous as it is
morally preposterous.

It is telling that despite your repeated assertion that same-gender unions
make no contribution to social stability, you have not even *tried* to
answer my simple questions: In what way does a childless gay couple make
less of a contribution to social stability than does a childless straight
couple? In what way does a gay couple raising children make less of a
contribution to social stability than does a straight couple raising
children?

--Gary