![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Question About Newsgroups | RST Engineering | General Aviation | 1 | January 17th 05 05:59 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Home Built | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Owning | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |