About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Steve House" wrote in message

....- to arbitrarily define that
"marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
traditional
but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.

Ah, so even in prehistory we are to blame all on "homophobes". Tripe.

You don't think there were bigots thousands of years ago? The Biblical
penalty for inter-ethnic sex was death--same as the penalty for gay sex, or
for worshipping the wrong deity. Those sentiments echo all the way to the
present.

The notion of a two-gender relationship around a core family unit evolved
millenia ago, even before the concept was recognized or codified as
"marriage". It evolved that way because even the most primitive of human
groups could recognize and understand the benefit to the entire clan of a
structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide
security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew
and
learned the ways of the clan. To state that such an evolution was based
on
an arbitrary aversion to homosexuality is ludicrous.

To say that heterosexual unions evolved as an aversion to homosexuality
would indeed be ludicrous, but no one has said anything of the sort.

However, there does seem to have been an ancient, widespread aversion to
homosexuality, just as there were similar ancient, widespread aversions to
inter-ethnic sex, religious pluralism, political and social equality between
men and women, and countless other such prejudices. (No one knew better
back then; now we do.)

What Steve said is that the present-day insistence on excluding gay couples
from codified marriage has its origins in an arbitrary, ancient
prejudice--not that heterosexual couples or families originate from such
prejudice.

Incidentally, your fanciful story as to the origins of family structure is
almost as ludicrous as the story that you inaccurately attribute to Steve.
Family structures occur even in species that have no cognitive ability to
assess and compare the relative merits of various forms of social
organization, hence no ability to "recognize" or "understand" the putative
benefits of what they are doing. There is no evidence that early human
family structures arose more ratiocinatively than did the similar structures
in other primates.

It presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality
than
heterosexual love.

I can't quite get my hands around a picture of a primitive clan discussing
the "...lesser moral quality..." of other members of the clan.

Good, since no one has proposed that picture. If you look at the full
quote, the "it" Steve refers to is the present-day marriage exclusion,
rooted in the ancient prejudice.

Such a
prehistoric evolution more likely simply recognized that a homosexual
relationship made no concrete contribution to the stability, security, or
social interweave of the clan.

That's a pretty far-fetched conversation for the ancient clansfolk to have
had, too. But since I can't interpellate your prehistoric protagonists,
I'll have to ask you instead: In what way does a childless gay couple make
less of a contribution to social stability etc. than does a childless
straight couple? In what way does a gay couple raising children make less
of a contribution to social stability etc. than does a straight couple
raising children?

--Gary

JG

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? 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. I don't buy it. Species
continually protect themselves. Sophistication is a thin patina indeed.

Well, Gary, you can call me a liar if you wish, but in fact gay rights
activists have posted their opinion on rec.scouting.usa and
rec.scouting.issues that BSA should not be allowed to use public facilities,
including parks and roads, because to do so constitutes a government subsidy
of a discriminatory group.

You can fantasize all you want, but your refusal to accept the facts does
not change them.

"Margy Natalie" wrote in message
...


Big John wrote:

I refuse to support United Way and any other organization who
discriminates against the BSA.

But organizations that discriminate against children are ok?

Margy

"As a licensed woman pilot (current or not), you are invited to become a
part of our legacy as the first and only international organization of women
pilots."

How does one explain the above discrimination by the 99s.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
.com...
"As a licensed woman pilot (current or not), you are invited to become a
part of our legacy as the first and only international organization of
women
pilots."

How does one explain the above discrimination by the 99s.

This has already been pointed out, but I guess you went to the bathroom or
something and missed it.

There's a difference between discrimination for the sake of discrimination
(e.g. BSA discriminating against gays) and discrimination inherent in the
organization (e.g. 99's). The 99's is *specifically* for the benefit of
women pilots, and as such it makes sense for them to exclude men. The BSA
is not *specifically* for the benefit of heterosexual men, and as such it
makes no sense for them to exclude homosexuals.

Pete

Never said that heterosexual marriage relationships grew out of an aversion
to homosexuality or evolved as a reaction to it. And since a heterosexual
orientation represents the majority of the population it is also going to be
the predominant type of relationship. But you are taking that farther and
saying that because it is the majority type then it must be the only
acceptable one, and b) it is somehow innate within heterosexuals to feel
that way. You then suggst that we tell it's innate because you assert that
within primitive cultures homosexuality either does not coexist alongside
heterosexual relationships in or is rejected. But many cultures both
primitive and not-so primitive have accepted homosexuality as fully equal to
heterosexuality, some Native American cultures, for example, even ascribing
a sacred quality to it.

By the way, tell the Spartans that homosexuality made no contribution to "a
structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide
security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew and
learned the ways of the clan." Among that "clan" it was not only tolerated
but mandatory and was considered to be fundamental to the stable structure
of society and the military security of the State.


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Steve House" wrote in message

....- to arbitrarily define that
"marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
traditional
but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.

Ah, so even in prehistory we are to blame all on "homophobes". Tripe.
The
notion of a two-gender relationship around a core family unit evolved
millenia ago, even before the concept was recognized or codified as
"marriage". It evolved that way because even the most primitive of human
groups could recognize and understand the benefit to the entire clan of a
structured society and of a cohesive social fabric in which to provide
security for the clan and to raise and protect their young as they grew
and
learned the ways of the clan. To state that such an evolution was based
on
an arbitrary aversion to homosexuality is ludicrous.

It presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality
than
heterosexual love.

I can't quite get my hands around a picture of a primitive clan discussing
the "...lesser moral quality..." of other members of the clan. Such a
prehistoric evolution more likely simply recognized that a homosexual
relationship made no concrete contribution to the stability, security, or
social interweave of the clan.

JG

"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

"Steve House" wrote in message
...

You just made the point I was illustrating - to arbitrarily define that
"marriage" can only be between persons of opposite gender may be
traditional
but it is an anachronism based solely on an aversion to homosexuality.


No it isn't.



It presupposes that homosexual love is somehow of lesser moral quality
than
heterosexual love.


No it doesn't.



People should be free to marry any person who wishes to
marry them back, regardless of their respective genders, and have the
legal
entity of a marriage of two same gender persons be indistinguishable in
any
manner from that of two opposite gender persons. That is not to say that
religious organizations shouldn't be able to define marriage and those
eligible to do so within the context of their congregations and rituals as
they wish - I was married in the Catholic church and my wife and I had to
conform to certain requirements that were not part of the civil
requirements
for marriage and that is at it should be. But the *civil* authority
should
treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples exactly alike in every respect,
including the terminology that is used to refer to the union.


Persons of the same sex cannot marry because marriage involves persons of
the opposite sex. You want government to redefine marriage so that they
can, but government doesn't have that authority.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:ITn0b.897
Persons of the same sex cannot marry because marriage involves persons of
the opposite sex. You want government to redefine marriage so that they
can, but government doesn't have that authority.

Apparently the Canadian government does.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't
appear, of course. But the intent is clear.


The exact words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The intent is
clearly to prevent the US Congress from making a law establishing a national
religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.