Uzytkownik "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:6e14bcdc.0403041245.29ae0ff5@posting.google.com...
> "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."
>
It is, but it is of course only a choice/option on one level. On another
level these people never chose to been born in the first place, and are only
there by the will of God.
Let's not forget that.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
Yeah, don't patronise me, perhaps you need a writing one.
> I'm
> saying that YOU are making religious arguments by invoking "the eyes
> of god" as some sort of rational.
Some sort of rational what?
> 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.
Hardly. Marriage is a Creation ordinance. It was started with Adam and Eve.
They are the forefathers of everyone, whether they believe it or not and
whether their law tells them about it or not.
> 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.
Marriage is in the eyes of God whether it is what you call 'civil' or
'religious'.
I'm as you can tell religious, but I did not have a wedding service in a
church for the simple reason that I don't see wedding services in churches
mentioned in the Bible, but I do see that the civil magistrate is ordained
of God.
You do not shut God out of a marriage situation simply by not having it in a
Church.
> 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.
>
There are hardly any such in my country. They have thoroughly blasphemed
with regards to marriage.
>
> > 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.
Dura lex, sed lex.
> 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.
>
If you have no 'superstitions' as you call them, then why get married at
all?
Shouldn't you have the courage of your convictions and pursue some sort of
godless concubinate?
> > 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?
When I didn't even say that.
I said, oh thou that wouldst send Davey of all people on a reading
comprehension course, that they don't like the downgrading of _the family_
in society.
Allowing marriages that do not result in families the same status as those
who do seems to me to downgrade the family in society.
I think that should be clear enough, even to someone devoid of
superstitions.
Uncle Davey
|
| 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 |
|