Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: rogue719@hotmail.com (rogue)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: 12 Reasons Why Gay People Should Not Be Allowed To Marry
Date: 4 Mar 2004 21:09:59 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 252
Message-ID: <6e14bcdc.0403042109.5c5460a5@posting.google.com>
References: <Gh_0c.10558$4o3.3698@twister.socal.rr.com> <c249om$ilr$0@pita.alt.net> <6e14bcdc.0403030821.188b54bb@posting.google.com> <c2705b$41a$0@pita.alt.net> <6e14bcdc.0403041245.29ae0ff5@posting.google.com> <c286mb$ssv$0@pita.alt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.70.99.224
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1078463399 15006 127.0.0.1 (5 Mar 2004 05:09:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 05:09:59 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2918
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c286mb$ssv$0@pita.alt.net>...
> Uzytkownik "rogue" <rogue719@hotmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
>
> > >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
> 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.
JERRY
I will be happy not to forget it when you can prove it. You see,
Davey, my position is that the bible is nothing more than a 2000 year
old book of goatherder mythology. It fails to be consistent,
containing contradictions within the text that cannot be resolved
within the text, but must be rationalized by the reader. It fails to
be historically accurate and it fails miserably on prophecy. You
would think that if this god you believe in really did inspire/write
the bible, he would do a better job of articulating himself. From
this book, he looks like a damned inarticulate dork.
So, when you can prove that your god exists and wrote the bible you
use to justify your bigotry about gays, I will be happy to "not forget
that." ;-)
> > >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.
>DAVEY
> Yeah, don't patronise me, perhaps you need a writing one.
JERRY
I appear to be doing a better job expressing myself and making my
points than you so far, Davey. You seem to be reading into my text to
see there what you expect or want to see. I don't mind correcting
you, mind you. Makes you look not quite so quick on the draw. ;-)
>
> > I'm
> > saying that YOU are making religious arguments by invoking "the eyes
> > of god" as some sort of rational.
>DAVEY
> Some sort of rational what?
JERRY
Jeez, did I really type "rational" rather than rationale? My bad.
You are using "eyes of god" as an explanation that really doesn't fit
in this case, since the posting is about the ironies of the excuses
used by theists to justify their opposition to same-sex marriage. In
other words, it's about the legalities, not the moralities, but we can
always argue that too. I just won't grant you the main assumption you
start from: that the bible is anything more than a book of myths.
>
> > 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.
>DAVEY
> Hardly. Marriage is a Creation ordinance. It was started with Adam and Eve.
JERRY
Hardly. There is no evidence to support the bible as being true about
pretty much anything. There was no Adam and Eve. One of the reasons
I keep pointing out in alt.talk.creationism why theists fight so hard
against evolution in spite of the evidence against them is the
following:
If evolution is true, there was no Garden of Eden.
If there was no Garden of Eden, there was no Adam and Eve.
If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no Fall from Grace.
If there was no Fall from Grace, there was no original sin.
If there was no original sin, then Jesus' sacrifice, if it existed at
all, is worthless
Therefore, if evolution is true (and it is) then there is no reason to
believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, Davey.
And since I can prove the bible isn't true, I have no reason to put
any stock in your "creation ordinance" claim. it's based upon your
assumption that the bible is true, which it isn't
> >JERRY
> > 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'.
JERRY
nope. You see, Davey, here is the problem with your claim:
You are attempting to use a religious argument in a legal situation.
The US is not a christian nation, nor are all it's citizens
christians. The separation of church and state gives non-christians
the same legal standing in the eyes of the law as christians, or at
least it's suppposed to. In the case of same sex marriage though, it
doesn't. Here, the cultural prejudices, mostly justified by literal
interpretation of your goatherder myth, causes those who are attracted
to their own sex to be considered second class citizens under the law.
That is why I brought up, civil and religous rites. If marriage is a
civil rite in any manner; if it gives a tax benefit, inheritance
benefits, etc, then by the constitution, it should be available to all
citizens, not just those that the so-called christian right deems
worthy of it.
>
> 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.
JERRY
But your argument is irrelevent in the context of the discussion. You
have the option of getting married. Britney Spears can get married
for 55 hours, a new celebrity record. But she has more legal standing
under the law to get married than someone who has been in a fifty year
relationship because the relationship and attraction is to a person of
the same sex.
That's not fair. It's not just. And it's unconstitutional if we
agree that all are created equal and are entitled to the same life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness. And gay marriage doesn't hurt
anyone at all, Davey. It's simply tightass christians trying to be
exclusionary as they can't stand that people they don't like have the
same rights they have.
>> JERRY
> > 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
> There are hardly any such in my country. They have thoroughly blasphemed
> with regards to marriage.
JERRY
i'm not sure what country you are in (and I'm too busy to check your
headers to track it down) but in the US, there are tax breaks to be
had if you are married. There are shortcuts for inheritance purposes
that married couples get that same sex couples can't have. If your
partner is sick and in the hospital, since you can't get married to
your same sex partner, that partner has no rights to sit with the
patient and talk to the doctor if the blood relation family members
don't want that partner there. Since there are civil benefits to
marriage, those benefits should be available to all. if marriage is
simply a religious rite, with no civil benefits, then anyone can get
married or be refused marriage by their church but they can go find
another church.
>
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> DAVEY
> If you have no 'superstitions' as you call them, then why get married at
> all?
JERRY
for the tax break. So that my wife can have the same benefits that I
described above. So she can have medical insurance coverage through
my work. Otherwise, as you say, there is no reason to get married at
all.
> DAVEY
> Shouldn't you have the courage of your convictions and pursue some sort of
> godless concubinate?
JERRY
Ibid above. Actually, I wouldn't mind a harem but then people would
accuse me of being Mormon and I have to have a sense of humor or they
accuse me of being christian. ;-) Or Republican.
>
> > > 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?
>DAVEY
> 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.
JERRY
that's what I thought you said, and why I asked how same sex marriage
downgrades a family that is not same sex? See, I didn't screw up, you
did. Again. (that means Once more, Davey) ;-)
>DAVEY
> Allowing marriages that do not result in families the same status as those
> who do seems to me to downgrade the family in society.
JERRY
So, you are in favor of not allowing matrimony for older couples who
don't have children? How about couples that can't have children? If
they are already married and then find out they will have to be
childless, they should be split up and not allowed to be married?
is that what you mean?
> DAVEY
> I think that should be clear enough, even to someone devoid of
> superstitions.
>
JERRY
I caught it. Perhaps you will, the second time around.
|
| 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 |
|