"Jason Gastrich" <newsgroups@jcsm.org> wrote in message news:<M8E1c.13489$4o3.7351@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> >>>>> JASON
> >>>>> I understand what you're saying, Davey. You and I know that
> >>>>> marriage is a covenant between humans and God. Some have
> >>>>> forgotten, though.
> >>>>
> >>>> JERRY
> >>>> I understand what you are saying, Jason, but some people seem to
> >>>> have forgotten that this is not a Christian nation but a melting
> >>>> pot where there is a separation of church and state, therefore
> >>>> your belief in marriage as a covenant with god and humans is a
> >>>> speech for your church and has no bearing on the civil rights of
> >>>> the citizens of the US.
>
> Hi Jerry,
>
> The dictionary defines marriage as: the state of being united to a person of
> the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual
> relationship recognized by law.
JERRY
Because the dictionary is simply a book of current and past
definitions. Since the law prohibits same sex marriage, the book
would not include same sex marriages or allow for them. The issue
here is not how marriages HAVE been defined in the past but how they
will be defined in the future and why.
> JASON
> The separation of church and state is a phrase by an ex-President; not a law
JERRY
It is expressed as an intent by the framers of the Constitution by an
ex-President who was one of the framers and writers of that document.
Therefore, it's fairly authoritative on the intent of the Founding
Fathers in regard to state and church and the claims by christians
that this nation was founded with the intent of it being a "christian
nation."
> JASON
> . This country is much more religious and Christian than you are admitting.
> Furthermore, polls show that about 65% of the people DO NOT want to legalize
> gay marriages.
JERRY
In 1965 there were 35 states that banned interracial marriages. Were
they correct? Was the majority correct when they said that "god
intended the races to be separate?" That was the argument from
southern states that made any relationship between people of different
races a crime and punished more than a few for it. Are you going to
state right here and for the record that god intended the races to be
separate and there should be no interracial marriages? This is the
basis of your argument, an argument that if the majority thinks
something is correct, then it is. Let's remember that this so-called
logical fallacy of the argument from popularity could also be applied
to the fact that a little over 500 years ago, the majority of the
people believed the world to be flat and if you sailed too far you
would sail off the edge. Were they right? Is the majority correct?
>JASON
> Right now, the mayor in NY who is performing gay marriages is about to face
> the music. The Attorney General was on the news today
> (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040303.wspitzer0303/BNSto
> ry/International/) telling him to stop or he would "take appropriate
> measures to stop him." The mayor will likely serve jail time. Are you one
> that is for breaking the law, in this regard, or do you suppose people
> should obey the marriage laws?
JERRY
I stand with Dr. Martin Luther King, who actually EARNED his doctorate
degree, Jason, and who stood up for those who were oppressed. I stand
with Mahatma Ghandhi who said that he would not obey an unjust law.
I think I'm in very good company. You can stand with Pontius Pilate
if you wish, Jason.
> JASON
> Can you prove that marriage was originally something other than a covenant
> with God?
JERRY
Can you first prove there really was a god, and that this deity you
claim a covenant with is the same god of your bible?
>JASON
>I have a document from thousands of years ago that proves "my
belief."
>
JERRY
Jason, we've already answered this. You have a document from two
thousand years ago that contains a lot of goatherder mythology that
fails to be correct historically, prophetically and consistently. You
have a document that doesn't really prove anything though you wish to
claim that it does.
When I spanked you on Tyre in alt.talk.creationism I proved that the
bible fails on prophecy. You called me a liar (even though I
documented my case and my reasoning and you did not) and then ran away
to place me in your killfile.
It could just as easily have been the NT as the old, just as easily
been the four gospels and the problems between the synoptics and the
book of John or even the inconsistencies of the Resurrection morning,
which I understand you are struggling with now in another debate. I
wouldn't even presume to debate Till on the Failed Land Promise of
Yahweh, since I've seen Till's arguments. And I wouldn't have
retaliated by forging a fake post, as it simply paints the forger as
childish and petulant.
From where I sit, you are the one who has demonstrated that he doesn't
know his bible, since you kept changing your position as I would knock
one argument down after another. You are the one who demonstrated a
lack of basic science when you sided with Kent Hovind the liar and
fraud and claimed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT)
invalidated the theory of evolution. By the way, it was a really poor
choice. If you wish, you can email me privately and I will be happy
to explain the 2LoT for you and show you why it doesn't invalidate
anything. Knowledge is power and at least you won't make that mistake
again.
|
| 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 |
|