"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c2705b$41a$0@pita.alt.net>...
> Uzytkownik "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:6e14bcdc.0403030821.188b54bb@posting.google.com...
> > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<c249om$ilr$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > > DAVEY
> > > Quite frankly, I don't understand why they need marriage.
> > >
> > > Many heterosexual couples are opting not to formalise their unions in
> the
> > > eyes of the state, and of course they are married in the sight of God as
> > > soon as they become one flesh anyway.
> >
> > JERRY
> > At least they have the choice, am I correct?
>DAVEY
> It all depends what you mean by 'choice'.
JERRY
Not at all. YOu said that heterosexual couples are "opting not to
formalise (sic) their unions in the eyes of the state." That
constitutes a choice, and it doesn't depend at all on what I mean as a
choice. The phrase you used "opting" is a euphemism for "choice."
>
> >
> > > DAVEY
> > > They are married even though they are not married in the eyes of the
> state.
> > >
> > > Homosexuals, even if they become married in the eyes of the state, are
> not
> > > able to become married in the eyes of God, because God has only made
> > > marriage possible between a man and a woman. All a man can become with
> > > another man is a worse sinner than he was before.
> >
> > JERRY
> > Please go back and re-read my statement about marriage being a civil
> > rite versus a religous rite. If it's a civil rite, with benefits from
> > the state (visitation rights in hospitals, better tax breaks,
> > inheritance rights, etc) then by our Constitution it should be
> > available to all citizens. If there are no civil benefits from
> > marriage and it's a religious rite, then each church can marry or
> > refuse to marry anyone they wish based upon their belief system.
> >
> > Your "eyes of god" nonsense is simply that. While gays do not have
> > the same rights under the Constitution as straight people, they are
> > relegated to Second Class Citizen status based upon religious
> > prejudice.
>DAVEY
> So you're saying you have to be religious in order not to go along with
> homosexual attempts to influence society?
JERRY
Not at all. Perhaps you need a reading comprehension course. I'm
saying that YOU are making religious arguments by invoking "the eyes
of god" as some sort of rational. The issue is not whether or not
they are married "in the eyes of god," as they may not hold the same
religious beliefs you do and therefore your religious beliefs on the
matter are totally irrelevent. The real issue is: is marriage a
civil rite or a religious rite? If it's a civil rite, then it should
be available to all under the constitution. IF it's a religious rite,
then each religion can choose to marry or refuse to marry anyone in
their church for their own religious reasons. HOwever, if there are
civil benefits to marriage (tax breaks, inheritance, etc) then
marriage becomes a civil rite and withholding it from some citizens
based upon religious or cultural prejudices is unconstitutional.
> DAVEY
> I think these days most people lobbying for homosexual influence seen to be
> within one or another religious organisation, and the majority of people
> willing to say what they think about homosexuals and their so-called marriag
> es are the irreligious.
JERRY
And I'm saying you are wrong, in that religion really shouldn't be a
part of it at all. Under the law, your religious beliefs are no
better or worse than mine. You can have your own opinion, but in the
court of law and in the eyes of the law, your superstitious belief is
no better than my lack of one and shouldn't be a factor in the issue
of whether or not marriage is a civil or religious rite.
> DAVEY
> Take my relations, for example. They aren't religious, but they don't like
> the downgrading of the family in society any more than any typical person
> does. They can't understand why more churches don't take a tough line on it.
JERRY
And how, pray tell, does homosexual marriage "downgrade" the
relationship between two people who aren't the same sex?
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 |
|